|
The 2021 Sunshine Week is scheduled for March 14-20. Sunshine Week is a national initiative to highlight the important roles of freedom of information and open government in functional democracies. Sunshine Week is an annual event in March and coincides with James Madison's birthday on March 16.
The Data Practices Office maintains several resources on our website to help members of the public and government understand Minnesota's government transparency laws. We also regularly add videos to our YouTube channel, tweet updates, and offer trainings for everyone interested in learning more about the Minnesota Data Practices Act and Open Meeting Law.
Always feel free to contact the Data Practices Office with any questions you have about data practices and open meetings. We are here to help!
Intro to Data Practices Workshop on March 17
The Data Practices Office will be hosting an Intro to Data Practices remote workshop on March 17 that provides an overview about state and local governments' responsibilities under the Data Practices Act, including:
- Background on a government entity's legal duties related to government data;
- Advice on the legal requirements related to appropriate access to not public data and data breach investigations and notifications;
- Help creating or updating customized data practices policies and procedures required by law; and
- An opportunity to apply your knowledge in hands-on exercises.
This workshop will be held remotely on WebEx, and it does not require in-person attendance. The cost to attend this workshop is $125.
More information about this workshop is available on our website.
Data Practices Potpourri Webinar
The Data Practices Office will be offering a free lunchtime Data Practices Potpourri webinar on Wednesday, March 31 at noon. This installment will include a discussion of the top questions our office received throughout March as well as a question and answer session.
More information about this free webinar is available on our website, and you can view recordings of past webinars on our YouTube Channel.
Open Meeting Law; Government Personnel Data
In Advisory Opinion 21-002, a member of the public requested a copy of the recording of a school district open meeting. The school district denied access to the recording, indicating the recording contained discussions of allegations against school district personnel. The Commissioner could not determine whether the school district properly responded to the public data request because there was a factual dispute as to the purpose for the school district’s maintenance of the recording, and whether the school district maintained more than one copy of the recording for separate purposes.
Halva v. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, A19-0481 (Minn., Jan. 20, 2021)
Appellant Tyler Halva had brought a district court action against respondent Minnesota State Colleges and Universities alleging the respondent failed to maintain and provide government data in violation of the Official Records Act and Data Practices Act. The district court dismissed the claims, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the appellant failed to sufficiently plead damages regarding his Data Practices Act claim and holding that the Official Records Act did not provide a private cause of action.
The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision that the appellant did not sufficiently plead damages for his Data Practices Act claim. The Court found that the lower appellate court had improperly applied a heightened standard when considering the district court's decision to dismiss the case. In reviewing the allegations, the Court determined that the appellant had met the appropriate pleading standard to overcome a motion to dismiss and remanded the Data Practices Act claim to the district court.
However, the Supreme Court declined to recognize that the Official Records Act permits a private cause of action, affirming the Court of Appeals decision. Specifically, the Court held that the language of the Official Records Act indicates that access to records is governed by the Data Practices Act, which does contain enforcement mechanisms. As a result, individuals who are harmed when a government entity fails to comply with the Official Records Act have a cause of action through the Data Practices Act.
The Court also noted that the Official Records Act's plain language is a barrier to recognizing an implied cause of action, and the statute's silence regarding remedies does not mean the language is ambiguous. Additionally, the Court observed that other sections of Chapter 15 provide private causes of actions, suggesting that the Legislature chose not to include a private cause of action within the Official Records Act.
|
