Laserfiche WebLink
Response: The Legislature should amend <br />the Open Meeting Law to allow a <br />governing body or a committee created by <br />a governing body to close a meeting to <br />interview candidates for management - <br />level positions such as city manager, <br />administrator, superintendent, or <br />department head, and to close a meeting <br />to evaluate and discuss the candidates, <br />and discuss salary and benefit <br />negotiations. Such closed meetings should <br />follow the same or similar procedures for <br />conducting closed meetings currently <br />required under the Open Meeting Law. <br />DP-7. Challenges to the Accuracy <br />of Data <br />Issue: The Minnesota Government Data <br />Practices Act (MGDPA) allows the subject <br />of government data to challenge the <br />accuracy or completeness of data maintained <br />by the government entity. If the government <br />entity denies the challenge, the Act allows <br />the data subject to appeal that determination <br />through a contested case proceeding under <br />the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court recently held <br />that a public employee could use the <br />MGDPA to challenge the accuracy of <br />certain information contained in the <br />employee's performance evaluation. <br />Schwanke v. Minn. Dept. ofAdmin., 851 <br />N.W. 2d 591 (Minn. 2014). While the Court <br />held that "dissatisfaction with a subjective <br />judgment or opinion cannot support a <br />challenge under the [MGDPA]," a data <br />subject can still challenge data that supports <br />the subjective judgment. Further, under the <br />Court's ruling, an invalid challenge to a <br />subjective opinion can no longer be <br />dismissed by the Department of <br />Administration; it can only be dismissed in a <br />contested -case proceeding. In even a <br />frivolous challenge the data subject will <br />have the right to submit evidence and call <br />witnesses at taxpayer expense. This right of <br />review is in addition to any bargained -for <br />grievance process, and can be exercised by <br />an employee before or after such a grievance <br />is undertaken. This process can result in <br />conflicting decisions and has the potential to <br />create a heavy burden on all levels of <br />government, and impose significant costs on <br />taxpayers. <br />Response: In light of the Schwanke <br />decision, the Legislature should modify <br />the data challenge provision of Minn. <br />Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4 to balance the rights <br />of data subjects to challenge the accuracy <br />and completeness of data with the <br />administrative and financial burdens on <br />local governments and taxpayers. <br />DP-8. License Plate Reader <br />Technology <br />Issue: License Plate Readers (LPRs) are an <br />important law enforcement tool that assist <br />law enforcement agencies to locate wanted <br />individuals, recover stolen vehicles, and <br />with many other types of investigations. A <br />number of federal and state courts have held <br />that the use of LPRs does not constitute an <br />unreasonable search under the United States <br />Constitution. Despite the legality and <br />usefulness of LPRs, the use of this <br />technology raises legitimate privacy <br />concerns. <br />LPR data is classified as public data under <br />the Minnesota Government Data Practices <br />Act (MGDPA), which means that any <br />person or organization can review license <br />plate reader data collected by law <br />enforcement agencies. These data could be <br />used by individuals who are searching for <br />victims of domestic abuse, stalkers, or others <br />who seek to use the data in furtherance of <br />criminal activity. LPRs identify the location <br />of vehicles that are lawfully operating on <br />public streets, and while there might not be a <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 90 <br />