Public Official Disciplinary Data
In Advisory Opinion 18-008, a county asked about the classification of an investigative
report about an elected county sheriff. The Commissioner agreed with the County
that the sheriff was a public official employee and that “retirement” is a form
of “resignation.” As such, all data about the complaint became public when the
sheriff retired while the complaint was pending, per Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subdivision
2(f) and (e) (excepting not public data about other individuals).
Radon Testing and Mitigation Data
In Advisory Opinion 18-009, a member of the public
asked whether a state agency had violated the Data Practices Act because it denied
him access to the data he requested (school
building radon testing/mitigation data). The agency stated that per Minn. Stat. § 13.3805, subdivision 5, data it maintains that “identify the address of a radon testing or mitigation site, and the
name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of residents and
residential property owners of a radon testing or mitigation site, are private
data on individuals or nonpublic data.” The Commissioner agreed with the
agency that data it maintains that identify the location of any radon testing
or mitigation site, regardless of the type of property, including school
buildings, are nonpublic. However, the same type of data that entities other
than the agency maintain are not classified by § 13.3805, subdivision 5.
Appropriate Response Time
In Advisory Opinion 18-010, a data requester asked whether a school district had
responded appropriately to several data requests he made, including one for
data about himself. The Commissioner opined that the district did not respond
appropriately to the requests for public data in these specific circumstances
when it did not communicate with the requester in nearly five months, despite
the fact that the district knew that some data the requester sought no longer
existed. The Commissioner further opined that the district did not respond
appropriately to the requester’s request for data about himself because it did
not provide him with any data within ten business days, as required by Minn. Stat § 13.04.
Open Meeting Law: Public Packet
In Advisory Opinion 18-011, a member of the public
asked whether a town board had violated the Open Meeting Law (OML) by not providing,
in the public packet of members’ materials, a copy of a document the board
discussed. The Commissioner acknowledged that the document was available to the
public at an earlier meeting, and that the board read it aloud at the meeting
in question. The Commissioner concluded that nonetheless, the board violated
the OML by not having a least one public copy of members’ materials available
to the public, as required by Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, sub. 6.
Approved Temporary Classification of Data
The Commissioner granted a request
from the City of Rochester to temporarily protect, as not public, certain
rideshare data. The classification is effective immediately, but has been
submitted to the Attorney General to review for form and legality. The Attorney
General must act on the classification within 25 days.
The application and the
Commissioner’s Findings and Conclusions are available on our website at: https://mn.gov/admin/data-practices/data/temp-classification/
Case Law Update
Three sets of plaintiffs sued several City of Victoria
council members and the mayor in separate lawsuits alleging violations of the
Open Meeting Law (OML). The district court consolidated the complaints into one
case. Ultimately, the district court found that the respondents had violated
the OML and imposed fines accordingly. The court declined to remove the
respondents from office per Minn. Stat. § 13D.06, subdivision
3(a), which provides that any person found violating the OML in three or more
actions forfeits the right to serve on the body for a period of time equal to a
term of office. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision not
to remove the respondents and the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Based on the plain language of § 13D.06, subd. 3(b), the court held
that in order for the forfeiture provision to apply, the statute requires the
court to a find “the occurrence of a separate third violation, unrelated to the
previous violations.” The court stated, “[allowing] three concurrently
adjudicated actions to trigger the forfeiture-of-office provision would deny
effect to the word ‘previous’ in subdivision 3(b)."
Plaintiffs asked the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State (SOS) for
a copy of voter data contained in the Statewide Voter Registration System
(SVRS), including voter ID number, full name, address, year of birth, voter
history including ballot type (in-person or absentee), voter status (active,
inactive, deleted, or challenged), and all other data on every Minnesota voter
“routinely provided on the public information CD.”
SOS denied access to the requested voter data stating the
data were not public pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 201.091, which restricts public access of voter records 1) to certain voter record data,
and 2) for purposes unrelated to elections, political activities, or law
enforcement. Plaintiffs clarified that they were not asking for restricted data, and both parties agreed that plaintiffs' request related
to elections.
The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for
summary judgment because defendants failed to identify a statutory
classification for the data in the SVRS. The Court cited Advisory Opinions
00-038 and 12-016 to support its conclusion that the data at issue are
presumptively public.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s
ruling that school security camera footage was private educational data under Minn. Stat. §
13.32. In denying the student newspaper’s
attempt at securing the video footage, the court held that the video
constituted “educational data” that was “maintained” by the school district
because security video depicting identifiable students was data that “relates
to a student." The court declined to address whether the video was protected by
FERPA because it was properly classified as private under the Data Practices
Act.
|