5.1. ERMUSR 03-08-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MmRR )20?.U3tN), suhp. 2 See Chapter 4, Section I-B- I. Minn. Slat 913(iU 1. whd IPAD 97-6021 fan 1 i, 1997)', and 9?-U I4 (Apr. 1. 1997). M1finn. Slat ~ I1}9}, Minn Srat § I}U.OS_ Mayors may wonder what right of access they themselves have to data that isn't public. Whether an elected official or staff, the law says that access is limited to individuals "whose work assignments reasonably require access." Whether the mayor falls into that legal description is a question for each city to decide with the help of the city attomey. For this reason, mayors shouldn't be surprised if they don't get a key to the city offices just because the mayor of another city does. And of course, there's always a difference between whether one can access private or confidential data and whether one should. Since the data a person collects, creates, receives, maintains, or disseminates in the capacity of mayor is government data, a mayor may wish to be careful about where that data is created, collected, etc. Government data can easily, even accidentally, be created at home that is both public and subject to a retention schedule. Also, mayors may wish to take care in what they say in their official capacity within a-mails and even text messages. The MGDPA states that correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private-though either party may make it public. At the same time, correspondence between elected officials and employees is public un ess t-T t'ns informations ecificall c assf le as non- u Ic. 1s even applies to the city administrator's s a us reports to the city council. The attomey-client privilege, however, would apply to documents created for the purpose of giving legal advice, such as a letter between the city attomey and a city official. The Open Meeting Law prohibits the closing of a meeting solely to discuss private data (except in limited circumstances clearly listed in the statute), and provides that private data may be discussed openly at any public meeting without fear of liability or penalty as long as the release of the data is reasonably necessary to conduct the business the data relates to. If private data needs to be discussed at a public meeting, it is recommended that the city try to protect the information by assigning numbers, letters, or similar designations to it, and that those designations be used instead of the actual data. Discussing private data in a closed meeting does not change the fact that it is private. Therefore, even though an open meeting might have just occurred in which private data was discussed, that data shouldn't be discussed with family, friends, or the media as if it is now public information. While inmost cases private data may be discussed in an open meeting without fear of liability, mayors should remember the situations mentioned in [he previous section in which the Open Meeting Law requires a meeting to be closed. ~" MiMnoo Ma}on I S Asa~o,ian«: