Agenda - Council - 03/26/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Bill March 20, 1991 Page No. 2 Ail other personnel data is private data on individuals and must not be released without a court order. Early on in the hiring process the names of applicants are private data except when the individual certified is eligible for appointment to a vacancy or selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection. The obvious rationale for maintaining privacy in the initial stages of interviewing is to ensure the availability of qualified applicants without jeopardizing their existing job security. The legislature has recognized that a public employer need only reveal the names of applicants upon the narrowing of the field to the finalists. For purposes of the statute, "finalist" means an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to final selection. Minn. Stat. §13.43, subd. 3 (1988). The second law that must be considered in the hiring process of a new City Administrator is the Open Meeting Law. The purposes of the Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. §471.705, were discussed and established in Itasca Board of Commissioner vs. Olson, 372 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. App. 1985), as follows: To prevent action from being taken at a secret meeting wherein it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning Board decisions or to detect improper influences; 2. To assure the public's right to be informed; and To afford the public opportunity to present its views to the Board. As with the Minnesota Data Practices Act, the Open Meeting Law also has its list of exceptions as have been legislatively amended and judicially interpreted. Subdivision l(b) of Minn. Stat. §471.705, which relates to the distribution and availability of information and meetings, does not apply to materials classified by law under the Government Data Practices Act or to those materials relating to agenda items of closed meetings which are held in accordance with the procedures set out in the Open Meeting Law or other laws permitting the closing of meetings. Subdivision l(b) also provides for the civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100.00 if a member intentionally violates the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. With this brief background and rationale of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and Open Meeting Law, I will now analyze the method in which these two laws have been reconciled in the context of private data on individuals.