|
The 2022 Sunshine Week is scheduled for March 13-19. Sunshine Week is a national initiative to highlight the important roles of freedom of information and open government in functional democracies. Sunshine Week is an annual event in March and coincides with James Madison's birthday on March 16.
The Data Practices Office maintains several resources on our website to help members of the public and government understand Minnesota's government transparency laws. We also regularly add videos to our YouTube channel, tweet updates, and offer trainings for everyone interested in learning more about the Minnesota Data Practices Act and Open Meeting Law.
Always feel free to contact the Data Practices Office with any questions you have about data practices and open meetings. We are here to help!
Intro to Data Practices Workshop on March 15
The Data Practices Office will be hosting an Intro to Data Practices remote workshop on Tuesday, March 15 that provides an overview about state and local governments' responsibilities under the Data Practices Act, including:
- Background on a government entity's legal duties related to government data;
- Advice on the legal requirements related to appropriate access to not public data and data breach investigations and notifications;
- Help creating or updating customized data practices policies and procedures required by law; and
- An opportunity to apply your knowledge in hands-on exercises.
This workshop will be held remotely on WebEx, and it does not require in-person attendance. The cost to attend this workshop is $125.
More information about this workshop is available on our website.
Data Practices Potpourri Webinar
The Data Practices Office will be offering a free lunchtime Data Practices Potpourri webinar on Wednesday, March 23 at noon. This installment will include a discussion of the top questions our office received in March as well as a question and answer session.
More information about this free webinar is available on our website, and you can view recordings of past webinars on our YouTube Channel.
Policies and Procedures; Data Subject Access
In Advisory Opinion 22-001, a member of the public asked whether a joint powers entity responded appropriately to a request for a copy of its data access policies as well as to a request for data about himself. The Commissioner determined that the entity did not respond properly to the request for a copy of its policies because the entity had not yet adopted the required access policies at the time of the request. Additionally, the Commissioner noted that the entity did not reasonably meet the requirements of section 13.04, subdivision 3 when it contacted the requester during the afternoon of the day that the 10-day deadline expired to provide an opportunity to inspect data. Finally, the Commissioner provided guidance on government entities' responsibilities related to large data requests and internal procedures that consider respectful workplace policies.
Smith v. City of Crosby, et al., A21-0709 (Minn. Ct. App., Jan. 18, 2022) (unpublished)
Appellant Jesse Smith, a police officer formerly employed by the City of Crosby, sued the City, the police chief, and a police lieutenant (respondents), alleging they had defamed him and had violated the Data Practices Act by disclosing private data about him and failing to expunge certain records related to the termination of his employment that was later overturned in arbitration. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents after finding the appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence demonstrating the alleged defamatory statements were actionable. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of respondents on the data practices claims, determining that respondents’ statements did not violate the Data Practices Act, the appellant waived his privacy rights when making a document containing private data available to the public, and the city had properly retained certain private personnel data.
In considering the appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the respondents on the defamation claims, finding that the lower court did not commit errors when analyzing whether disputed statements were defamatory. The Court of Appeals also affirmed summary judgment in favor of the respondents on the data practices claims but on different bases.
The Court of Appeals noted that the appellant alleged four instances of respondents disclosing private data in violation of the Data Practices Act. In the first instance, the Court determined that respondents had properly disclosed private data during an employment background check because the appellant had signed two different, comprehensive authorizations permitting the City to disclose private data about him.
The other instances of alleged disclosures involved situations when one respondent made comments during a radio show appearance and in letters to the editor in local newspapers. The Court held that it wasn’t clear the respondents disclosed private data about the appellant because the specific comments were vague. Additionally, the Court determined the appellant failed to provide evidence to meet the heightened standard to recover damages for emotional harms that he claimed the alleged disclosures caused.The Court of Appeals also disagreed with the lower court that the appellant waived his privacy rights or the respondent's obligations under the Data Practices Act when he provided a 52-page arbitration decision containing his private data to the media. However, the appellate court noted that the appellant’s disclosure of the report undercut his claim that he suffered emotional distress. As a result, the Court determined summary judgment was appropriate on these issues.
Finally, the Court of Appeals wrote that the appellant’s claim that the City failed to expunge specific data about him in violation of the Data Practices Act was also subject to summary judgment in favor of the respondents. The Court observed that although the appellant was entitled to “contest the accuracy or completeness of public or private data” under the Data Practices Act, he had improperly pursued this claim in district court. The appropriate procedures to challenge data as inaccurate or incomplete are described in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4.
|
