Private personnel data
In Advisory Opinion 15-005, a school district asked whether Minnesota
Statutes, section 122A.41, subd. 6(c), requires sharing certain private
personnel data with another district. That subdivision states that under certain
circumstances, a school district must disseminate private personnel data, “[u]nless
restricted by … state data practices law….” The Commissioner opined that despite
the apparent objective of that provision, the district may not share private
personnel data with a requesting district because the Data Practices Act is a “state data
practices law” that restricts disclosure of private data.
Public official investigations
In Advisory Opinion 15-006, a city asked about the classification of data in a draft
investigation report about a former city public official. The Commissioner opined that all data related
to the complaint or charge in the report are public because the public official
resigned before the city finished the report and because the former public official released the city
from all claims stemming from the complaint, under Minnesota Statutes,
section 13.43, subd. 2(e) and (f). The Commissioner further opined that the city could not enter into an agreement with the data subject to restrict access
to public data, per section 13.43, subd. 10.
Civil investigative data
In Advisory Opinion 15-007, a county asked whether it could classify certain appraisal
data as confidential or protected nonpublic under Minnesota Statutes,
section 13.39. A county prepared a second appraisal for a condemnation/eminent
domain action. The Commissioner opined that because the proceeding was the type of civil legal action contemplated by
section 13.39, and the chief attorney had determined that the action was pending,
the County could temporarily classify the appraisal as not public while the
civil legal action was pending.
Harlow v.
State of Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al., A14-1342, A14-1343
(Minn. Ct. App., April 27, 2015).
-
Oral arguments before the
Minnesota Supreme Court took place on December 8, 2015.
In re
KSTP-TV v. Metro Transit and Metropolitan Council, A14-1957 (Minn. Ct. App.
Aug. 24, 2015).
- On November 25, 2015, the
Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Metropolitan Council’s petition for review.
|
Minnesota Statutes, section
626.8472, requires the chief law enforcement officer of any agency that uses
automated license plate readers to establish and enforce a written policy that
governs the use of the readers, including employee discipline standards for
unauthorized access to the data, by January 15, 2016.
Open Meeting Law Workshop - January 27, 2016
IPAD will hold its Open Meeting Law
(OML) workshop on Wednesday, January 27. This
workshop provides an overview of OML requirements, gives practical advice on
implementing the OML, and allows attendees a chance to discuss and ask members
of IPAD staff questions. Visit IPAD's website for more information and to register.
Future Workshops
Throughout the spring and summer of 2016, IPAD will offer
workshops on a variety of popular topics, including an Introduction to
the Minnesota Data Practices Act's Policies & Procedures, Law Enforcement Data, and Personnel Data. If
you are new to a position that deals with data practices issues, or simply need a refresher course, IPAD recommends that you attend the Intro workshop before progressing to one that is
more specialized.
Please keep an eye on IPAD’s homepage for updates!
|