Advisory Opinion 95-034
July 27, 1995; Douglas County
Background & Issues
After the Douglas County Housing and Redevelopment Authority fired an employee, a local newspaper requested records related to the disciplinary action, but the agency refused to provide them. The newspaper asked the Commissioner to determine what data about former public employees are public and whether the specific reasons and supporting documentation for an employee's discipline must be released.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner determined that because the agency had made a final decision to terminate the employee, the specific reasons for the disciplinary action and the documentation supporting the decision are public records, excluding information that would identify confidential employee sources.
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 correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson are as follows:
Section 13.43, subdivision 2, specifies which data about former public employees are public.
The HRA appears to have made a final disposition in terminating its employee. Therefore, the specific reasons for the disciplinary action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body, are public data.
July 27, 1995; Douglas County
7/27/1995 10:15:43 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 citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.On July 10, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated July 3, 1995, from Mark Anfinson, on behalf of the Echo Press. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the Echo's dispute with the Douglas County Housing and Redevelopment Authority over access to certain personnel data. In response to the Mr. Anfinson's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Meyer, Chair of the Douglas County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, hereafter HRA. The purposes of this letter, dated July 12, 1995, were to inform Ms. Meyer of Mr. Anfinson's request, to ask her or the HRA's attorney to provide information or support for the HRA's position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On July 20, 1995, PIPA received a letter from Ms. Meyer requesting that the Commissioner wait an additional 30 days before issuing an opinion. She asked for the extension so that officials of HUD could complete certain processes in regard to the employee. In a letter dated July 21, 1995, Don Gemberling, Director of PIPA, responded to Ms. Meyer's letter by stating, in part, The basis you describe in your request for an extension is not, in our opinion, one of the circumstances that is contemplated by the opinion statute. For that reason, we are denying your request...However, you still have the opportunity to present the commissioner with information that the HUD sanction process that you described in your letter or something else about this situation somehow affects the classification of the data your agency is maintaining about [the employee]. PIPA did not receive an additional response from the HRA. A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. Apparently, the HRA recently fired an employee. According to Mr. Anfinson, shortly thereafter, the Echo requested access to the public data relating to the disciplinary action. Mr. Anfinson related that the HRA had refused to provide the data, despite his follow-up written request, dated June 15, 1995. (Mr. Anfinson provided a copy of this letter to PIPA.) Based on the refusal of the HRA to provide access to the data, Mr. Anfinson requested an advisory opinion.
Issues:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
Discussion:
Mr. Anfinson, on behalf of the Echo, requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner because the newspaper has experienced difficulty obtaining certain government data from the HRA.
The Echo seeks data relating to a former employee of the HRA. Such data are classified in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, personnel data: As used in this section, 'personnel data' means data on individuals collected because the individual is or wasan employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission. (Emphasis added.)
Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a), certain data about former employees are public:
Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a), clearly states that when a final disposition of any disciplinary action has occurred, the final disposition is public as well as the specific reasons for the action and any data documenting the action. A final disposition, as clarified in Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), occurs when a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the present situation, there appears to be no dispute that the HRA, in terminating the employee, has arrived at a final disposition. Therefore, the final disposition of any disciplinary action (the termination) together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the action are public data. In addition, any other data about the employee that are consistent with the elements in Section 13.43, subdivision 2, are public data. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Anfinson are as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: July 27, 1995
|