Advisory Opinion 07-001
January 10, 2007; School District 531 (Byron)
Background & Issues
After reports surfaced of a hazing incident involving a school sports team, a newspaper reporter asked the Byron School District for details such as the team involved, the nature of the hazing, how many students were disciplined, and the penalties imposed. The school district refused to release this information, claiming that even general details could allow community members to figure out the identities of the students involved. The Commissioner was asked to decide whether the school district properly withheld these records.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner concluded that the school district violated the law by withholding the general nature of the alleged hazing. The Commissioner could not determine whether releasing the team name, number of disciplined students, or specific disciplinary actions would improperly reveal private student identities.
Automated synopsis generated for quick reference only — it has not been reviewed word-for-word against the official record and is not legal advice. Always review the full opinion text below for the Commissioner's actual determination, or see the original document on mn.gov. Think this summary misstates the opinion? Report it.
Excerpted Ruling / ConclusionBased on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
Independent School District 531, Byron, did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in denying access to the following data relating to a hazing incident: the nature of the alleged hazing. The Commissioner is unable to determine whether releasing the number of students disciplined and/or the particular athletic team involved and/or the disciplinary action would release private data about any District students.
January 10, 2007; School District 531 (Byron)
1/10/2007 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:
On November 6, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated November 3, 2006, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Rochester Post-Bulletin. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data from Independent School District 531, Byron. IPAD requested clarification, which Mr. Anfinson provided on November 20, 2006. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Wendy Shannon, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Anfinson's request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District's position. On December 7, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Nancy Blumstein, an attorney representing the District. A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote: Recently, the [District] was embroiled in allegations that one of the school's athletic teams had been involved in a hazing incident. The controversy was widely publicized and became a major item of public concern in the district. Shortly after the allegations arose . . . a reporter for the Post-Bulletin, contacted Byron school authorities and requested certain information about the incident. [The reporter] knew that data identifying particular students could not be publicly disclosed, and therefore confined her request to more general information: the particular athletic team involved, the nature of the alleged hazing, the number of students disciplined, and what disciplinary action was taken. In response to this request, however, district officials declined to provide anything beyond the simple fact that allegations of hazing had been made, citing state data privacy laws. . . . At one point during the newspaper's efforts to obtain additional information about the hazing allegations, I spoke with an attorney for the school district about this matter. Her concern . . . was that if the non-identifying data the newspaper requested were disclosed and published, then at least a few people in the community who had somehow obtained other information regarding the incident might be able to add two and two and thereby deduce the identities of the students involved. . . . In our view, however, such an interpretation misconstrues the provisions of the Data Practices Act and grossly undervalues the public's right and need to know - something this particular incident graphically exemplifies. Mr. Anfinson also wrote that the school board held a meeting in early October, which in part addressed the alleged hazing incident.
Issue:
Based on Mr. Anfinson's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
Discussion:
The data at issue here relate to a hazing incident involving District students. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data on individuals that are about students. Generally, pursuant to section 13.32 and federal law, data about students are private; that a particular student was the victim of hazing and that another conducted the hazing would be private. Minnesota Rules 1205.0200, subpart 4, further clarifies that data are data on individuals if the data identify an individual in itself, or can be used in connection with other data elements to uniquely identify an individual. Also relevant here is that pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 19, summary data are accessible to the public. Minnesota Rules 1205.0200, subpart 16, provides that summary data may include reports once all data elements that could link the data to a specific individual have been removed. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Blumstein wrote: The District's refusal to release information related to this hazing incident . . . was consistent with Minnesota law. The Department of Administration has recognized that public summary data can constitute private educational data if and when the release of the data can make a student's identity easily traceable and/or apparent. . . . This is exactly the situation presented here. The disclosure of the sports team involved would have confirmed the identity of the [student(s)] subject to discipline . . . Similarly, if the District disclosed the exact nature of the discipline imposed, community members would have been able to identify the [perpetrator(s)] . . . Information concerning the nature of the incident would have released private educational information about the [victim(s)], [whose identity(ies)] already appeared to be well known in the community. In fact, because of the very small size of the Byron Community, the School District believed that the release of any specific facts concerning the hazing incident would likely result in the inadvertent release of private education data. In her request to the District, the newspaper reporter apparently asked for four separate pieces of information related to a hazing incident: the nature of the alleged hazing, the number of students disciplined, the particular athletic team involved, and the disciplinary action taken. Regarding the nature of the alleged hazing, it does not appear this is the type of data the release of which would identify any of the involved students. Therefore, such data are public and the District should have released the information. However, the classification of the remaining information sought by the reporter may be more complicated. If, by stating the number of students disciplined and/or the particular athletic team involved and/or the type of discipline imposed, the District would, in effect, be identifying an individual student or students, the District cannot release the information. For example, if the District disclosed the number of students disciplined and the number exceeded the number of players on all but one team, the District would, in effect, be identifying the team involved. So, if the team involved is known and the type of discipline, while not disclosed by the District, is something a member of the public would be able to observe at a public school event, a student or students would, in effect, be identified. In addition, because each school district can designate certain educational data as directory (public), it is possible an individual who accesses public directory information would be will be able to identify a student or students by combining the directory information with any data the District has released. Here, the District clearly is in the best position to determine whether it can appropriately release the data in question because it is familiar with all the relevant facts. The key is that the data cannot be released if they alone identify an individual or can be used in connection with other data elements to uniquely identify an individual. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
Signed:
Dana B. Badgerow
Dated: January 10, 2007 |