Law Enforcement Data Workshop on September 12
The Data Practices Office will be presenting an in-person Law Enforcement Data Workshop in Golden Valley on Monday, September 12. The workshop will provide a primer (or refresher) about the key provisions in Minnesota law governing law enforcement data, including:
- Discussion of general legal requirements, including criminal investigative data, juvenile data, traffic accident data, body camera video data, and more;
- Real-life problem solving scenarios based on actual inquiries; and
- Time for questions and answers about the day-to-day issues that involve law enforcement data.
This workshop is hosted by the Golden Valley Police Department and will be held in-person at Brookview Golden Valley. The cost to attend this workshop is $250 per person.
Registration information for this workshop is available on our website.
Data Practices Potpourri Webinar on September 20
The Data Practices Office will be offering a free Data Practices Potpourri webinar on Tuesday, September 20 at 10 a.m. This installment will include a discussion about the top questions our office received in September 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.
Intro to Data Practices Workshop on September 22
The Data Practices Office will be hosting an in-person Intro to Data Practices workshop on Thursday, September 22 that provides an overview of 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 in-person at the Centennial Office Building in St. Paul. The cost to attend this workshop is $125 per person.
More information about this workshop is available on our website.
Open Meeting Law
In Advisory Opinion 22-004, a member of the public asked whether a township board of supervisors violated the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of the board held a private discussion before its noticed meeting, and whether the board violated the OML when it did not provide access to public meeting materials during its meeting. The Commissioner opined that if the board discussed public business before its noticed meeting, it violated the OML. The Commissioner further opined that the board violated the OML when it failed to provide access to public meeting materials in the meeting room pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 6.
Personnel Data; Final Disposition of Disciplinary Action
In Advisory Opinion 22-005, a government entity asked whether a final disposition of disciplinary action occurred for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5) when the entity decided to discipline an employee, the employee grieved the discipline under a collective bargaining agreement but resigned during the grievance process, and the union representing the employee declined to elect that the grievance be referred to arbitration. The Commissioner opined that final disposition had occurred based on the language of section 13.43, subdivision 2(b) because the employee’s union failed “to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement.” Additionally, the employee’s resignation during the grievance process did not impact when the final disposition occurred.
Government Data
In Advisory Opinion 22-006, a city asked whether data it collected, created, and maintained pursuant to a contract with a private entity were government data, subject to the Data Practices Act. The Commissioner opined that the data met the definition of government data in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, which was supported by the fact the city’s financial director administered the data as part of her work for the city. The Commissioner further advised that the data were public unless the city could identify a state statute or federal law that classified the data as not public.
|
