https://mn.gov/ en-us https://mn.gov/ https://mn.gov/ 2026-08-04T17:00:07Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-762867 The Commissioner Opined that Rush City School Board did not provide an appropriate statement on the record, as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 3, before closing meetings on January 29, 2026, April 2, 2026, April 27, 2026, and May 7, 2026. 2026-07-16T17:11:57Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-759732 A government entity asked whether a specific employee was considered a "public official" for the purposes of section 13.43, subd. 2(e)(5)(iii). The employee resigned as part of a settlement agreement resolving a personnel complaint, and the entity was seeking to determine whether other data related to the complaint should become public. Section 13.43, subd. 2(f) makes data related to a complaint public when a public official resigns while a complaint is pending or releases any legal claims as part of a settlement agreement regarding conduct that was the subject of the complaint. The Commissioner agreed with the entity that the employee was not a public official. The employee's position description made clear the employee was not a manager who had administrative oversight or similar independent leadership like other types of public officials described under section 13.43, subd. 2(e)(5)(iii). 2026-05-18T16:37:57Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-747392 The Commissioner opined that the Metropolitan Airports Commission Board of Commissioners policy does not require attendees to pay for TSA ConfirmID to attend meetings and therefore, MAC’s policy does not violate the Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01 requirement to hold open meetings. 2026-05-18T16:35:51Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.jsp?id=36-749204 The Commissioner opined that the City of New Prague did not initially respond appropriately to a January 20, 2026, data request for an automated license plate reader data audit trail required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.824, subdivision 7(c) because it failed to provide the requester with all public data he was entitled to access. The City has since offered access to the requested data. 2026-04-23T16:32:19Z https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/opinions/library/index.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/index.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/index.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/index.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/index.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/index.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).