MAY 2020    

Data Practices & OML Resources During a State of Emergency

Government entities are continuing to face data practices and open meeting challenges because of social distancing and limited operations that help keep employees and the public safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, entities are still required to meet their obligations under the Data Practices Act and Open Meeting Law.

Our office has compiled several resources on the Data Practices & OML Resources During a State of Emergency webpage to help government entities and the public understand data practices and open meeting requirements while services are disrupted. This guidance may be useful even when the state of emergency is lifted and government entities move toward resuming normal operations.

You can also contact the Data Practices Office with any questions you have about the Data Practices Act and Open Meeting Law. We are here to help!

Upcoming Data Practices Office Trainings

Law Enforcement Data Webinar Series

The Data Practices Office is beginning a new lunchtime webinar series focusing on law enforcement data. The first installment of this free five-part series will be held on May 13 at noon. The webinar will include an introduction to law enforcement data and protected identities.

More information about this webinar series is available on our website, and you can view recordings of other past webinars on our YouTube channel.

In-Person Data Practices Office Trainings on Hold

The Data Practices Office will not be holding any in-person workshops or trainings in the near future as a precautionary safety measure related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our office will update our Workshops and Trainings page on the Data Practices Office website when we can safely hold workshops once again. We will also continue to provide updates through our Data Practices Office email alerts when new in-person workshops are scheduled.

In the meantime, you can find several video resources and past webinars about data practices and open meeting topics on the Data Practices Office YouTube channel.

Advisory Opinion Updates

Classification of Employee Contact Lists

In Advisory Opinion 20-003, a member of the public made a data request to a school district for an email attachment that contained a district employee's "contact list." The school district denied access to the contact list, asserting contact lists are private personnel data. The Commissioner opined that the contact list may contain public data and/or not public data depending on the contacts listed. The fact that an individual maintains a list of contacts does not, by itself, make the contacts about that individual.

Classification of Body Camera Video in an Officer-Involved Shooting Investigation

In Advisory Opinion 20-004, a City asked whether it was the agency with "primary investigative responsibility," pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7, when the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) investigates an officer-involved shooting on the City's behalf. The City also asked about the classification of body camera data while the BCA investigates the officers' conduct. The Commissioner opined that the City's position stating the BCA was acting as the City's agent was reasonable, and, therefore, the City retained the primary investigative responsibility. Additionally, based on the language of Minn. Stat. § 13.825, subd. 2(a)(3), body camera data that are part of an active criminal investigation are classified by Minn. Stat. § 13.82, subd. 7, as confidential and protected nonpublic while the investigation is active. When the investigation becomes inactive, the body camera video data are classified by Minn. Stat. § 13.825.

Sharing Educational Data

In Advisory Opinion 20-005, the Minnesota Department of Education requested an opinion regarding access to private and confidential data within the same government entity, as well as sharing of private data between school districts and counties. The Commissioner opined that private or confidential data may be shared with individuals in other programs or units within the same government entity when the individuals have a work assignment that reasonably requires access, and that private data may be shared or exchanged between government entities when authorized by statute or federal law. The Commissioner specifically addressed sharing provisions that MDE referred to in its advisory opinion request.

Case Law Updates

Cilek v. Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State, No. A18-1140 (Minn. April 8, 2020)

The Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State (OSS) appealed a ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirming the grant of summary judgment to respondent, Mr. Cilek. Mr. Cilek requested certain voter registration data from the OSS. The OSS responded to Mr. Cilek's data request by providing information on the public list as described in Minn. Stat. § 201.091, subd. 4, but denying access to the other requested data, including statewide voter registration system information on voter status, the reasons for challenges to voter registration, and information related to individuals who were not currently registered voters.

Based on the reading of Minn. Stat. § 13.607, subd. 6, stating "access to registered voter lists is governed by section 201.091," the Minnesota Supreme Court reasoned that "regardless of how the data in registered voter lists would be classified under the Data Practices Act, the plain language of the Act itself limits access—the right to obtain or use—to that which is allowed in the governing statute, Minn. Stat. § 201.091." The Court held that because section 201.091, subds. 4 and 5, allow public access to only the public information lists, the OSS was not obligated to provide Mr. Cilek with the additional data he requested. The Court also noted that the OSS has permissive authority to provide other data to requesters for use related to elections, political activities, or certain law enforcement circumstances. The OSS's decision not to exercise that discretion in this case was allowable.