Agenda - Council Work Session - 01/26/2016

Home

interview candidates for management - level positions such as city manager, administrator, superintendent, or department head, and to close a meeting to evaluate and discuss the candidates, and discuss salary and benefit negotiations. Such closed meetings should follow the same or similar procedures for conducting closed meetings currently required under the Open Meeting Law. DP -7. Challenges to the Accuracy of Data Issue: The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) allows the subject of government data to challenge the accuracy or completeness of data maintained by the government entity. If the government entity denies the challenge, the Act allows the data subject to appeal that determination through a contested case proceeding under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Minnesota Supreme Court recently held that a public employee could use the MGDPA to challenge the accuracy of certain information contained in the employee's performance evaluation. Schwanke v. Minn. Dept. of Admin., 851 N.W. 2d 591 (Minn. 2014). While the Court held that "dissatisfaction with a subjective judgment or opinion cannot support a challenge under the [MGDPA]," a data subject can still challenge data that supports the subjective judgment. Further, under the Court's ruling, an invalid challenge to a subjective opinion can no longer be dismissed by the Department of Administration; it can only be dismissed in a contested -case proceeding. In even a frivolous challenge the data subject will have the right to submit evidence and call witnesses at taxpayer expense. This right of review is in addition to any bargained -for grievance process, and can be exercised by an employee before or after such a grievance is undertaken. This process can result in conflicting decisions and has the potential to create a heavy burden on all levels of government, and impose significant costs on taxpayers. Response: In light of the Schwanke decision, the Legislature should modify the data challenge provision of Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subd. 4 to balance the rights of data subjects to challenge the accuracy and completeness of data with the administrative and financial burdens on local governments and taxpayers. DP -8. License Plate Reader Technology Issue: License Plate Readers (LPRs) are an important law enforcement tool that assist law enforcement agencies to locate wanted individuals, recover stolen vehicles, and with many other types of investigations. A number of federal and state courts have held that the use of LPRs does not constitute an unreasonable search under the United States Constitution. Despite the legality and usefulness of LPRs, the use of this technology raises legitimate privacy concerns. The retention of data for an extended period of time increases the potential for misuse of the data and for "retroactive surveillance." The League of Minnesota Cities recognizes that the appropriate use of LPRs must strike the proper balance between the need for robust law enforcement and individual privacy rights. In 2015 the legislature passed compromise legislation regulating the use of LPRs, the classification of LPR data, and the retention period for LPR data that struck a fair balance between the two interests. Response: The League supports the continued use of LPRs under the terms of the 2015 legislation, and opposes any League of Minnesota Cities 2016 City Policies Page 89