Advisory Opinion 98-035
June 22, 1998; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)
Background & Issues
A former student alleged that the Eden Prairie School District improperly shared private data about them with the Minnesota Department of Economic Security while releasing records concerning their parent. The former student stated that they never gave consent for their information to be released. The Commissioner was asked to determine whether the school district inappropriately disclosed the former student's private data.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner determined that the school district released private data about the former student and that doing so was improper.
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 C is as follows:
School District 272, Eden Prairie, released private data about C to the Minnesota Department of Economic Security. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the release of private data was not appropriate.
June 22, 1998; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)
6/22/1998 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 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 PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On April 27, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated April 23, 1998, from C. C is a former student of School District 272, Eden Prairie. In C's letter, s/he requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of data about C from School District 272, Eden Prairie, to the Minnesota Department of Economic Security. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bill Gaslin, Superintendent of the District, in response to C's request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 30, 1998, were to inform him of C's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On May 15, 1998, received comments, dated same, from Patrick Flynn, an attorney representing the District. A summary of the facts as presented by C is as follows. C is a former student of District 272. C alleged that when the District disseminated data about C's parent (who is a former or current employee of the District) to the Department of Economic Security, some of the data released were about C. C stated that s/he did not give the District consent to release the data. Issue:In the request for an opinion, C asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (a), educational data are defined as data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student. Subdivision 1 (c) of Section 13.32, defines student as an individual currently or formerly enrolled or registered at a public educational agency or institution. Pursuant to subdivision 3 of Section 13.32, educational data are private data on individuals. Further, if a data subject has not consented to a release of private data about him/her, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivisions 3, 4, and 9, the data can be disseminated only if express statutory authority exists. In his comments regarding the opinion request, Mr. Flynn argued that any references to C can be best described and categorized as collateral, unrelated and generally innocuous and incidental in their nature in respect to any data privacy rights of [C]. Mr. Flynn wrote that C was never identified by name; only referred to as the son/daughter of C's parent. Mr. Flynn further stated that the data about C are not part of C's educational record but were created and maintained in regard to C's parent's employment with the District. He added, [t]he School District denies that [C's] data privacy rights were in any way violated. Even if, at best, there was a strictly technical violation, it was de minimis and inconsequential. Mr. Flynn's comments are problematic for the following reasons. First, although it is correct that the data about C (such as an allegation by an unknown individual that C is violating a particular school policy) do not contain C's name, C is referred to as the son/daughter of C's parent and, in the documents disseminated by the District to Economic Security, C's parent is referred to by name. (Although the Commissioner has not identified C in terms of gender, i.e., a son or a daughter, it should be noted that C was identified that way in the District's documents.) The Commissioner is of the opinion that a phrase identifying C as his/her parent's son/daughter, in this case, is clearly data on individuals that identify C. Section 13.02, subdivision 5, defines data on individuals as data in which the individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data. Based on the premise that some of the data disseminated from the District to the Department are data about C, the question is whether those data are classified as private. If they are private, dissemination is appropriate only if the subject has given consent or there is express statutory authorization for the release. (See Section 13.05, subdivisions 3, 4, and 9, and Section 13.32, subdivision 3.) As discussed above, data on individuals maintained by public educational institutions are classified at Section 13.32. Assuming the data released about C are not directory information, which are public (see Section 13.32, subdivision 5), they are private data. Private data cannot be released absent express statutory authority. In this case, no such authority was identified. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by C is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: June 22, 1998 |