Data practices policies
In Advisory Opinion 19-002, a member of the public asked if a state board was in compliance with the Data Practices Act if it did not provide access to the policies required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025. The board did not reply to the data request, which the Commissioner opined is not an appropriate response to a request for access to government data. Further, section 13.025 requires government entities to make the access policies available to the public in a manner such that the public does not have to ask for them.
Personal cell phone data
In Advisory Opinion 19-003, a member of the public asked about his right to obtain government data maintained on the cell phones of county sheriff employees. In its response, the county stated that its employees’ personal cell phone records are not government data, contradicting its own policy that the county considers work-related data created, received, recorded, or stored on a personally-owned cell phone government data. The Commissioner opined that the county should have ascertained whether any of the cell phones contained government data, and if so, provided the data to the requester.
Education data
In Advisory Opinion 19-004, a school district asked whether it should provide access to a video of two students engaged in an altercation to one of the parents of one of the students. The Commissioner stated that where possible, schools must segregate the requesting parent’s student’s data from any other students’ data. However, relying on federal guidance, the Commissioner concluded, if segregating the data is not possible, then the school should provide the requesting parent with access to the unredacted video.
Inactive criminal investigative data and juvenile data
In Advisory Opinion 19-005, a law enforcement agency asked about the classification of data in an inactive criminal investigation of an officer-involved fatal shooting. The Commissioner opined that the data were variously classified under Minnesota Statutes, sections 260B.171 (peace officer records of children), 13.10 (private data on decedents), 13.82 (law enforcement data), and 13.825 (body camera data). The Commissioner also opined that absent clarification from the Legislature, law enforcement agencies have discretion to interpret the scope of the plain meaning of “data that document the discharge of a firearm” that are public under section 13.825.
Open Meeting Law and special meetings
In Advisory Opinion 19-006, a city council held a special meeting and provided notice by posting the proposed agenda. At the special meeting, the Council took action on three items that it had not identified in the notice. At a subsequent regular meeting, the Council approved meeting minutes of the special meeting but did not provide a copy of the minutes in the public packet. The Commissioner concluded that the Council members did not comply with the Open Meeting Law at either meeting.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the district court properly granted the Plaintiffs’ (“MVA”) motion for summary judgment, as “data on (1) registered voter status, (2) reason for a challenge, and (3) voter history are public data” per the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13) and Minn. Stat. § 201.091 (2018).
Appellants (“Secretary of State”) denied MVA access to certain data contained in the Statewide Voter Registration System (“SVRS”), arguing that Minn. Stat. § 201.091, subds. 4 and 5 indicate that only the data contained in the “public information list” are public data. As the public information list does not include registered voter status, reason for challenge, or voter history, the Secretary of State concluded that these data are private data for purposes of the Data Practices Act. The Secretary of State also argued that certain data contained in the SVRS are presumed not public, and the Secretary of State has discretion to decide whether to disclose certain SVRS data.
In its opinion, the Court stated that the Secretary of State must identify a specific authority that classifies the data at issue as not public as required by Minn. Stat. § 13.01, subd 3. The Court held that Minn. Stat. § 201.091 does not classify the requested data as not public, and therefore the Secretary of State may not rely on this statute in denying members of the public access to government data.
|
|
