FYi Newsletter - July 2021

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


JULY 2021  

Update Data Access Policies by August 1

Minn. Stat. § 13.025 requires all government entities subject to the Data Practices Act to create policies about access to public data as well as the rights of data subject. The law also requires government entities to review and update these policies by August 1 of each year.

Our office is reminding all data practices officials to review and update data access policies by the August 1 deadline. The Data Practices Office website has sample policies and a guidance worksheet to help you consider different factors as you update your policies.


Upcoming Data Practices Trainings

After the Chapter 12 Emergency: Data Practices and Open Meetings

The Data Practices Office will be offering a free webinar on Wednesday, July 14 at 1 p.m. focusing on the Open Meeting Law and data practices obligations now that the statewide emergency has ended, and it will include a live Q&A session.

2021 Legislative Update: Data Practices and Open Meeting Law

The Data Practices Office will be offering a free webinar on Wednesday, July 21 at 1 p.m. focusing on changes the Minnesota Legislature made to data practices and the Open Meeting Law during the 2021 regular and special legislative sessions.

More information about both of these free webinars is available on our website, and you can view recordings of past webinars on our YouTube Channel.


Advisory Opinion Updates

Open Meeting Law

In Advisory Opinion 21-004, a member of the public asked for recordings of a township board of supervisors' meetings closed for labor negotiations pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.03. The board argued that members voted to post the recordings to the Township website and to make them available upon request, but it was unclear from the facts whether the board actually made the recordings available. The Commissioner opined that the board members did not comply if they did not make the recordings "available" to the public after it had signed all of the contracts for the current budget period.

Personnel Data

In Advisory Opinion 21-005, a school district asked the Commissioner about the classification of data that the district maintained about teachers who attended a professional development program offered by the district. The Commissioner concluded that data identifying teachers who attended the program constituted "work-related continuing education" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(7), and were therefore public data.


Case Law Updates

Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison, A20-1344 (Minn. Ct. App., June 1, 2021)

Non-profit corporation Energy Policy Advocates requested specific data during a six-month time period from the Office of the Attorney General, which responded that all requested data were classified as not public. Energy Policy Advocates then brought an action in district court to compel compliance with the Data Practices Act. The district court determined that the Office of the Attorney General had properly classified the data and entered judgment in its favor, which Energy Policy Advocates appealed.

In making its decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court for further in camera review of certain data categories and production of a privilege log to determine whether data are private data on individuals, investigative data, attorney work-product, or protected by attorney-client privilege.

Specifically, the Court found that certain responsive data were properly classified as private data on individuals as individuals were the subject of the data. However, the Court indicated that the district court erred in determining additional data were private data on individuals without first reviewing whether individuals were the subject of the data at issue. The Court wrote that data cannot be classified as “private data on individuals” when the data do not identify an individual. As a result, the district court must conduct additional in camera review to determine whether the remaining data contains private data on individuals.

The Court also held that the district court erred in applying the work-product and attorney-client privilege doctrines based on the general descriptions the Office provided, and that the Office must submit a privilege log stating the legal basis or bases for not providing the responsive documents on remand. Additionally, the Court noted that the common-interest doctrine has yet to be adopted in Minnesota and cannot be relied upon as an exception to disclosure requirements of the Data Practices Act. The Court wrote that it is the responsibility of the Legislature or the Minnesota Supreme Court to determine whether Minnesota will recognize the common-interest doctrine.

The Office of the Attorney General filed a Petition for Review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals with the Minnesota Supreme Court on June 23, 2021.