Agenda - Council - 02/08/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

will not threaten the victim or witness's personal safety or property. However, victims and their families can be traumatized by the events that caused their injuries, even when their safety or property is not threatened. Publicly disclosing their identities and the location where they are receiving medical care places a burden on families and victims who may be questioned by reporters, solicited by lawyers, and contacted by other members of the community. While there are legitimate public policy reasons to make this information public, the MGDPA provides no discretion for city officials and law enforcement to temporarily withhold victim data when releasing it is not in the best interest of the victims. This not only makes the initial period of recovery more difficult for victims, but erodes the trust between victims and state and local government. Response: The Legislature should amend Minn. Stat. § 13.82 to allow law enforcement agencies to temporarily withhold the disclosure of data that identifies victims and casualties and the medical facilities to which they are taken if the agency reasonably determines that access to the data would cause emotional harm to the individual or otherwise impede the individual's recovery. The Legislature should also amend Minn. Stat. 13.82 to clearly and permanently prohibit the disclosure of traffic accident victim identity, similar to the protections for crime victims. 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 122 the data subject to appeal that determination through a contested case proceeding under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). In the human resources context, a performance evaluation is a tool used to document and evaluate employee job performance. Performance evaluations are not discipline; however, some jurisdictions and some union contracts have appeal processes to challenge a performance evaluation. Performance evaluations are normally conducted once a year. The Minnesota Supreme Court has 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. There is currently no limitation on when a performance evaluation challenge may be brought. Often there is no retention period for the underlying data because it is rarely an official record. Furthermore, the more time that passes, the less likely those with the knowledge of a given performance evaluation may be still employed by the city. It is to everyone's benefit to have the challenge to accuracy of data conducted as soon as possible. Under Schwanke, 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.