Advisory Opinion 00-063
December 5, 2000; City of Windom
Background & Issues
After a city police officer was charged with a crime, a local newspaper asked whether the officer had been placed on paid or unpaid leave or remained on active duty. The city repeatedly refused to provide the records. The Commissioner was asked whether the public has a right to access data regarding the officer's job status, compensation, and benefits following the incident.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner decided that the city should have provided the requested records. The commissioner explained that a public employee's salary, fringe benefits, and payroll time sheets are public data.
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 issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
If the Cottonwood County Citizen requested access to data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City should have provided it with the following public personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), clauses (1) and (8): actual gross salary; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee's work time for payroll purposes.
December 5, 2000; City of Windom
12/5/2000 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:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On September 19, 2000, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, attorney for the Cottonwood County Citizen, a newspaper published at Windom, Minnesota. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client's right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Windom. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Nelson, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated September 20, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. The City did not respond. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. Anfinson, a City police officer was involved in an incident that resulted in criminal charges, and shortly thereafter, the Citizen sought information . . . about [the employee's] job status, i.e., whether [s/he] had been placed on administrative leave with pay, was on leave without pay, or continued on active duty. Mr. Anfinson stated that the City has repeatedly denied access to the data. In support of his position that the data requested are public, Mr. Anfinson wrote: We understand, of course, that under Minn. Stat. section13.43, personnel data about public employees are generally classified as private unless otherwise enumerated in subdivision 2. However, we believe that the explicit language of subdivision 2, coupled with any reasonable interpretation of this language, requires that public agencies disclose whether a law enforcement officer has been placed on leave as the result of an incident, and if so whether the officer is receiving pay and benefits during leave. Although common and routine practice is obviously not dispositive as to legal questions, it certainly seems to be the case that almost invariably, law enforcement agencies in Minnesota do provide information about the job status of an officer following the occurrence of a serious incident. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:It is not clear from the information provided if the Citizen made a data practices request of the City, or merely posed questions that do not amount to a request for access to data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. If it is the latter, then the City was under no obligation to respond. However, if the Citizen requested access to the employee's job status, compensation and benefits under Chapter 13, then the City should have provided it with the following public personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), clauses (1) and (8): actual gross salary; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee's work time for payroll purposes. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: December 5, 2000 |