FYi Newsletter - July 2019

FYi Newsletter – From the Data Practices Office at the Department of Administration


JULY 2019    

Advisory Opinion Update

Entity subject to data practices and open meetings

In Advisory Opinion 19-007, a member of the public asked whether the Houston County Agricultural Society (“Society”) is subject to both the Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law. The Society conceded it is subject to the Open Meeting Law, but disputed that it is a government entity for purposes of the Data Practices Act. The Commissioner opined that the Society is subject to the Data Practices Act, as it is a political subdivision as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subd. 11. The Commissioner noted that it is the governing body of the Society that is subject to the Open Meeting Law.

Closing meetings to discuss allegations against employee

In Advisory Opinion 19-008, a City Council held closed meetings to discuss allegations against a staff member after it decided to hire an investigator. Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05, subd. 2(b), requires a public body to close a meeting(s) to consider allegations against an employee subject to its authority until it determines that discipline may be warranted. Once it makes that determination, subsequent meetings and hearings for additional consideration of the allegations must be open. The Commissioner concluded that the Council members did not comply with the Open Meeting Law.

Classification of program review data at the Office of Higher Education

In Advisory Opinion 19-009, the Office of Higher Education (OHE) asked about the classification of certain program review data it maintained on a private/out-of-state university. The Commissioner opined that while the OHE is conducting the review, the data may be classified as not public civil investigative data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.39. When the review concludes, the data revert to the not public classification they had prior to the investigation or are public. The Commissioner also reiterated that data may be protected as trade secret information under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, if the entity determines the data meet the definition in that section. Additionally, Minnesota Statutes, section 136A.64, classifies accreditation reports, records, and information in the program review as not public. Finally, the Commissioner noted that Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subd. 9, classifies data at the time of the request, regardless of any prior or subsequent classification.

Appropriate time to respond to a data request

In Advisory Opinion 19-010, a member of the public asked whether a state agency had violated the Data Practices Act because it had not provided her with access to the data she requested (public personnel data on two employees) until eight months after she asked for the data. In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has stated that a prompt, reasonable response is relative to the volume of data requested. Here, she opined that given the facts of this specific data request, including the type and amount of data requested, the agency’s response was not timely.