Laserfiche WebLink
and/or agreements with private and/or <br />non-profit agencies. <br />Such closed meetings should follow the <br />same or similar procedures for <br />conducting closed meetings currently <br />required under the Open Meeting Law. <br />DP-7. Challenges to the Accuracy of <br />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 />In the human resources context, a <br />performance evaluation is a tool used to <br />document and evaluate employee job <br />performance. Performance evaluations are <br />not discipline; however, some jurisdictions <br />and some union contracts have appeal <br />processes to challenge a performance <br />evaluation. Performance evaluations are <br />normally conducted once a year. <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. There is currently <br />no limitation on when a performance <br />evaluation challenge may be brought. Often <br />there is no retention period for the <br />underlying data because it is rarely an <br />official record. Furthermore, the more time <br />that passes, the less likely those with the <br />knowledge of a given performance <br />evaluation may be still employed by the city. <br />It is to everyone's benefit to have the <br />challenge to accuracy of data conducted as <br />soon as possible. <br />Under Schwanke, 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. <br />This right of review is in addition to any <br />union grievance process, and can be <br />exercised by an employee before or after <br />such a grievance is undertaken. This process <br />can result in conflicting decisions and has <br />the potential to create a heavy burden on all <br />levels of government, and impose significant <br />costs on 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. Law Enforcement <br />Technologies <br />Issue: To aid law enforcement in work, law <br />enforcement agencies need the flexibility to <br />effectively use all available tools, including <br />technology, in a manner that balances <br />privacy interests of citizens, transparency of <br />their work, and costs related to these <br />technologies. The Legislature has balanced <br />these concerns in the recent License Plate <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 98 <br />