MN
Data Practices Archive Minnesota Advisory Opinions
Not legal advice. This is an independent research archive, not affiliated with or endorsed by the State of Minnesota, the Department of Administration, or its Data Practices Office. Content here is for informational and educational purposes only — its creator is not an attorney, and no content has been reviewed by one. Always contact your own attorney before making a decision based on anything here. Full disclaimer · About this site · Report an issue
← Back to opinion list
← Opinion 03-047 Opinion 03-049 →
03-048

Advisory Opinion 03-048

December 22, 2003; City of Saint Paul

Published December 22, 2003
Personnel data
Opinion Brief AI-Generated

Background & Issues

After the City of Saint Paul released redacted records from a sexual harassment investigation, a reporter requested a list of former grant-funded employees from the Mayor's office. Because only one person fit the description, the City was concerned that releasing the list would identify an employee whose name had been protected in the investigative records. The City asked whether the list of former grant-funded Mayor's office employees is public data.

Commissioner Decision

The Commissioner decided that the list of former grant-funded employees from the Mayor's office is 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.

Full Text of Advisory Opinion 03-048 Reproduced as published by the Minnesota Department of Administration · retrieved from mn.gov on August 21, 2026
Excerpted Ruling / Conclusion
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Flaherty raised is as follows:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data maintained by the City of Saint Paul are public: a list of people who have worked in the City of Saint Paul Mayor's office in the last six months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office.
Advisory Opinion 03-048

December 22, 2003; City of Saint Paul

12/22/2003 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 3, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated October 30, 2003, from Dennis Flaherty, Deputy Mayor of the City of Saint Paul. In his letter, Mr. Flaherty asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains.

A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Flaherty wrote:

On August 6, 2003 David Schecter of WCCO-TV requested certain interview notes concerning an allegation of sexual harassment....These notes had been the subject of a previous request by the Pioneer Press. In order to respond to the Pioneer Press request, the City obtained a Department of Administration Advisory Opinion 03-035. In compliance with that opinion, the City has released the interview notes, having first redacted the personal identifying information, upon several media requests including the request from WCCO-TV....You will note that one of the city employees, identified in Advisory Opinion 03-035 as the co-worker whose identifying information was redacted, worked in the Mayor's office and that person's job ended because the grant paying for it ended. In the redacted notes that the City released, the letter B was used in place of information that would identify the co-worker.

Thereafter, on October 20, 2003, Mr. Schecter made an additional data request for a list of people who've worked in the Mayor's office in the last 6 months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office. ...Only one employee fits the parameters given by Mr. Schecter, so a response to the October 20, 2003, request will identify this employee as the co-worker discussed in the redacted notes.

...The October 20, 2003 request for the name of a public employee asks for what is usually public data. In this context however, releasing the name will also release private personnel data because it will specifically identify the co-worker as the person whose information initiated the investigation.


Issue:

In his request for an opinion, Mr. Flaherty asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Saint Paul maintains: a list of people who have worked in the City of Saint Paul Mayor's office in the last six months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office?


Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.

Data on individuals collected and maintained because an individual is or was an employee or volunteer are classified pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data clearly can be demonstrated to be only incidental to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)

The question before the Commissioner is whether the City may release the names of any individuals who have worked in the Mayor's office in the last 6 months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office. The Commissioner does not have enough information to determine whether data about the individual in question, hereinafter referred to as X, are classified pursuant to section 13.43 or classified pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1. The key is whether the data about X fit within the definition of section 13.43. If so, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2, the fact that an individual is or was employed by a government entity is public. That information, coupled with the fact that an employee's first and last date of employment are public, would suggest that X's name connected to his/her first/last dates of employment are public. The additional fact that grant money paid for X's employment is also obtainable pursuant to either section 13.43 or section 13.03, subdivision 1.

If data about X are not classified pursuant to section 13.43, they are presumed public.

Thus, it appears the data Mr. Schecter requested are public regardless of the Chapter 13 provision that classifies the data about X.

The following note is in order. The Commissioner acknowledges that, according to Mr. Flaherty, a release of the data will provide X's identity to Mr. Schecter. However, based on the information the City provided, the reason Mr. Schecter will learn X's identity is because Mr. Flaherty divulged that fact in his opinion request and sent a copy to Mr. Schecter.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Flaherty raised is as follows:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data maintained by the City of Saint Paul are public: a list of people who have worked in the City of Saint Paul Mayor's office in the last six months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office.

Signed:

Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner

Dated: December 22, 2003