Laserfiche WebLink
DP -2. Maintaining Government <br />Data in Large Databases <br />Issue: The Minnesota Department of <br />Administration Advisory Opinion 10-016 <br />issued in June 2010 maintains that the <br />Minnesota Government Data Practices Act <br />(MGDPA) requires cities to keep records <br />containing public government data so that <br />they can be easily accessible and convenient <br />to use, regardless of how they are kept. <br />Cities maintain that the application of this <br />advisory opinion to large databases in which <br />records are kept in an electronic format <br />forces cities to risk the daily threat of <br />allegations of noncompliance or leaves local <br />government officials confused regarding <br />how to apply the requirement for access to <br />data in circumstances where information <br />technology is utilized to facilitate the <br />management and organization of records <br />and information which often includes public, <br />private, and nonpublic data within individual <br />data sets. <br />Response: Cities insist that it is not <br />feasible to separate public from non- <br />public data when the records in which <br />that data is held are in electronic format <br />and held in large databases that are <br />intended to provide secure data storage <br />and maintenance, but are not directly <br />available in a form in which public and <br />private data contained in those records <br />can be separated. Requiring cities to <br />design such databases to accommodate <br />extensive data requests under MGDPA is <br />both financially and technologically <br />nearly impossible to achieve. <br />The Legislature should address the <br />growing and costly impact on cities of <br />providing access to specific public data <br />housed in large electronic databases. <br />Cities also require discretion in <br />determining that the release of certain <br />incident data could identify an individual <br />whose identity must be protected. <br />DP -3. Sharing of Student Data with <br />Local Law Enforcement in <br />Emergencies <br />Issue: Minn. Stat. § 13.32, subd. 3(1) defines <br />education data as private data that must not <br />be disclosed except to the juvenile justice <br />system in cases where information about the <br />behavior of a student who poses a risk of <br />harm is reasonably necessary to protect the <br />health or safety of the student or other <br />individuals. In addition, the federal Family <br />Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) <br />bars schools from disclosing information on <br />student educational records that contains <br />personally identifiable information without <br />consent of a parent or eligible student, with <br />only limited exceptions. <br />Minn. Stat. § 13.32 does not adequately <br />define who is responsible for making the <br />determination that an emergency or risk of <br />harm exists. As a result, school district <br />officials have interpreted the statute in <br />conjunction with the restrictions in FERPA <br />to require that the determination be made <br />solely by school officials. <br />Local police officials are often frustrated in <br />their efforts to investigate allegations of <br />criminal or other illegal activity when school <br />officials refuse, under Minn. Stat. § 13.32, <br />subd. 3(1) and FERPA, to provide <br />information to follow up such complaints or <br />to assist local police in solving crimes that <br />have already taken place. <br />School boards are responsible to have <br />policies in place that require school officials <br />to report a student who possesses an <br />unlawful firearm to law enforcement or the <br />juvenile justice system. But schools are not <br />allowed to release the name of a student in <br />dangerous weapon reports involving use or <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 86 <br />