FYi Newsletter - July 2025

FYi Newsletter – From the Data Practices Office at the Department of Administration


JULY 2025

Upcoming Data Practices Trainings

Legislative Update & Data Practices Potpourri Webinar on July 15

The Data Practices Office will be offering a free webinar on Tuesday, July 15 at 11 a.m. to highlight changes the Minnesota Legislature made to data practices statutes and the Open Meeting Law during the 2025 legislative sessions.

We will also discuss recent questions our office has received and hold a live Q&A session.

More information about this free webinar is available on our website, and you can view recordings of past webinars on our YouTube Channel.


Reminder: Update your policies by August 1

Minnesota Statutes, section 13.025 requires all government entities subject to the Data Practices Act to create policies about access to public data as well as the rights of data subjects. The law also requires government entities to review and update these policies by August 1 of each year.

This is our friendly reminder to data practices officials to review and update your entity's data access policies by the August 1 deadline. The Data Practices Office website has sample policies and a guidance worksheet to help you consider different factors to keep your policies up to date.


Are You a New Public Body Subject to the OML? Check Out These Resources!

During recent sessions, the Legislature has created several new boards, commissions, councils, and task forces that are subject to the Open Meeting Law.

The Data Practices Office has a variety of resources that can help these new public bodies (or anyone interested in open meetings) understand the OML's requirements, which include:

As always, DPO staff are happy to answer any of your OML questions. You can reach us by email at [email protected] or by phone at 651-296-6733.


Advisory Opinion Updates

Classification of personnel data

In Advisory Opinion 25-003, a school district asked about the classification of personnel data about a public official who resigned after a personnel investigation was completed but prior to the school board taking any official action based on the results of the investigation. The district also asked whether data contained in a resignation letter were classified as private. The Commissioner noted that section 13.43, subdivision 2(f) states that all data related to a complaint or charge against a local public official become public when the employee resigns while the complaint or charge is pending. In this situation, the public official resigned after an investigation was completed, but the school board had not yet decided whether it would discipline the employee or formally close the complaint. Therefore, the complaint was still pending at the time of the public official's resignation, and data related to the complaint became public. Additionally, the Commissioner opined that data within an employee's resignation letter are classified as private data under section 13.43, subdivision 4. 

Municipal utility customer data

In Advisory Opinion 25-004, a city asked whether Minnesota Statutes, section 13.685 classified data about a future municipal electric utility customer. The Commissioner determined that an individual or entity is a customer of the municipal electric utility if it has purchased or has a contract or agreement to purchase electric utility services from the municipal electric utility. As a result, a future municipal electric utility customer is not a customer for purposes of section 13.685, and data about the future customer are presumptively public. 

Response to data requests

In Advisory Opinion 25-005, a member of the public asked whether a state agency responded appropriately to a data request for "all emails" related to specific topics when the agency did not also provide documents attached to the responsive emails. The state agency's email retention policy then automatically destroyed several of the emails and attachments before the agency provided access to the missing responsive documents. The state agency maintained that the requester was not clear that the request for "all emails" included the attached documents. The Commissioner noted documents attached to an email message are part of an email itself. Therefore, the agency did not respond appropriately when it failed to provide access to email attachments in its response to the request. Further, the agency could not remedy the situation because the email auto-delete policy destroyed responsive data. The Commissioner encouraged government entities to ensure they have procedures in place to retain official records and data responsive to a request when using email auto-delete policies.

Response to data requests

In Advisory Opinion 25-006, a member of the public asked whether a school district responded appropriately to a request for public data. The requester asked for data 11 months prior and had received only portions of the data after inquiries from the Department of Administration and the requester. Additionally, the District indicated it was providing only a subset of the data due to technical difficulties with retrieving all the data requested. The Commissioner determined that the District did not respond appropriately to the request. 


Data Practices or OML Questions?

Have questions about data practices or the Open Meeting Law? Contact us by email at [email protected] or by phone at 651-296-6733. We are here to help!