Opinion ID: 1231625
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Data Practices Act.

Text: The Data Practices Act mandates which state and local government records must be accessible to the public. See Minn.Stat. §§ 13.01-.90 (2002). The act provides that the names of applicants for employment by a state agency are classified as private data except when    considered    to be finalists for a position in public employment. Minn.Stat. § 13.43, subd. 3 (emphasis added). Finalist is defined as an individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority prior to selection. Id. Thus, the candidates interviewed by the Regents were finalists under the terms of the Data Practices Act, and their names and certain other information are public if the act is applicable to the Regents. The act is applicable to [a]ll state agencies, political subdivisions and statewide systems. Minn.Stat. § 13.01, subd. 1. State agency is defined as the state, the University of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district or agency of the state. Minn.Stat. 13.02, subd. 17 (emphasis added). As the University of Minnesota is expressly included in the act's definition of state agency, the University of Minnesota falls within the scope of the Data Practices Act. The Regents nevertheless argue that without more specificity, the Data Practices Act should not be applicable to its presidential search data. They contend that the act is not applicable to the search data because the legislature did not specifically reference university presidential search data and because only the University, and not the Regents, is named in the definition of state agency. We find these arguments to be unpersuasive. The structure of the Data Practices Act generally makes data possessed by identified entities public data, unless the act provides otherwise. Minn.Stat. § 13.03, subd. 1 (All government data    shall be public unless classified by statute, or temporary classification    or federal law, as nonpublic or protected nonpublic, or with respect to data on individuals, as private or confidential.). Thus, specific categories of data are expressly addressed in the act in order to create exceptions to the general rule of public availability. In fact, Minn.Stat. § 13.43 accomplishes this with respect to personnel data. That section includes provisions governing data on applicants for government employment and makes data on finalists for employment, that is, applicants who have been selected for interviews, public. Minn.Stat. § 13.43, subd. 3. Given the legislature's approach in drafting the Data Practices Act, its silence with regard to the University's presidential selection process more likely indicates intent to subject that process to the requirements of the act than to exclude it. Furthermore, although the Regents are correct in pointing out that in some statutes the legislature refers to the University and in others it refers specifically to the Regents, examination of the context of those statutes does not support the Regents' conclusion that reference to the University in the Data Practices Act definition of state agency means that the Regents are not covered. If anything, the reference to the University instead of the Regents in the Data Practices Act was likely intended to convey a more inclusive meaning that would encompass all the units of the University that might possess data, including the Regents.