https://mn.gov/ en-us https://mn.gov/ https://mn.gov/ 2026-04-23T16:32:19Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-743263 The Commissioner opined that the City of Minneapolis did not respond appropriately to a request for body camera data, classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.825 as nonpublic, that document the requester’s home and personal property. 2026-03-17T20:20:02Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-733434 A city asked about the classification of data about its former police chief. The data involved comments received in response to an employee survey that raised concerns about the chief, who ultimately resigned after the city placed him on administrative leave in response to the concerns raised in the survey comments. The city argued that the data were private personnel data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. The Commissioner determined that the data received in response to an employee survey were complaints and charges against the police chief, and were public government data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subd. 2(f), as the chief resigned while the complaints and charges were pending. 2026-02-25T19:57:50Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-727779 A school district asked about the classification of data it maintained in an investigative report about the alleged misconduct of a school board member. The district noted that it had not made a clear determination on whether it considered its elected officials to be employees for data practices purposes. The Commissioner explained that a government entity is in the best position to determine whether its elected officials are employees for data practices purposes. If the officials are employees, then section 13.43 applies to data about them and the applicable classifications follow. If the officials are not employees, then section 13.43 does not apply to them and data are presumptively public. The Commissioner noted that entities must affirmatively determine whether its elected officials are employee, and the decision cannot be made directly in response to a data request. The Commissioner observed the district had not designated its elected officials as employees, which meant the data in the investigative report were presumptively public. 2026-02-04T20:13:03Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-722852 A member of the public asked whether a city responded appropriately to a request for documents that an individual gave to city council members during a council meeting. The city maintained that the data its council members received were privileged communications between a third-party individual and that individual's attorney. Therefore, the city denied the requester access to the data on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. The Commissioner noted section 13.393 exempts attorney data from the requirements of the Data Practices Act, including documents protected by attorney-client privilege. However, those exemptions apply to communications between only the city and its attorney and do not extend to data that the city believes may be privileged between others. Therefore, the city did not respond appropriately to the request because the requested data appeared to be presumptively public. 2026-01-16T16:44:40Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-719953 A reporter asked about Met Council’s response to a request for data about a former Metro Transit Police Chief. The reporter requested access to public data about an investigation into complaints or charges against the chief. Due to a recent legislative change, the duly appointed chief law enforcement officer of the Metro Transit is a “public official” as defined in Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subd. 2(e)(5) and therefore, data about a complaint or charge against the chief is classified public because he resigned while the complaint or charge is pending. Therefore, Met Council did not respond appropriately to the reporter’s request. 2025-11-13T16:38:35Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-712484 A county-based purchasing plan asked whether it was subject to the requirements of a Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46 after receiving a request from a media member for data it maintained. The purchasing plan denied the requester access, stating that section 13.46 classified the data as not public. However, the requester disputed whether the purchasing plan was part of the "welfare system" under the definitions in section 13.46. The Commissioner concluded that the purchasing plan was subject to the requirements of section 13.46 because it contracted with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to perform a government function. Therefore, the purchasing plan met the definition of “welfare system” as defined in section 13.46, subdivision 1(c). 2025-11-13T16:37:47Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-712951 A member of the public asked whether the Minnewaska School Board violated the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of its members attended an invitation-only event at a private residence. The Commissioner determined that the Board violated the OML because four of the seven Board members were present and received information related to official school business. Although the Board did not take formal action or organize the event, the gathering met the definition of a meeting under the OML. Since this meeting was not properly noticed and was not open to the public, the Commissioner concluded that the Board did not comply with the requirements of the OML. 2025-09-23T20:05:45Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-706901 Several media requesters asked whether a county sheriff’s office responded appropriately to a request for a 911 transcript. The County argued that portions of the transcript were active investigative data under section 13.82, subd. 7 and a health record under the Minnesota Health Records Act. The Commissioner concluded that 911 calls were public request for service data under section 13.82, subd. 3, and therefore the County did not respond appropriately. 2025-09-03T18:04:03Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-704077 A member of the public asked whether the Twin Lakes City Council violated the Open Meeting Law when it held an emergency meeting on June 3, 2025, to approve a wastewater services contract. The Commissioner determined that the Council violated the OML because the circumstances did not justify calling an emergency meeting, which is reserved for issues requiring immediate action, typically involving public safety. Since the matter could have been handled through a properly noticed special meeting, the Council’s use of the emergency meeting procedure did not comply with the OML. 2025-08-08T15:29:13Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/opinions-library.jsp?id=36-701366 A member of the public asked whether a city responded appropriately to their requests for public data. The requester made four data requests between September 1, 2023 and September 13, 2024, but received no response from the City as of July 2025. The City indicated that it was working with the data requester and had begun providing data to the requester upon learning of the pending advisory opinion request. The Commissioner determined that the City did not comply with the Data Practices Act because its response was not appropriate, prompt, or within a reasonable time.