Appellants, the former mayor and two former city council members for the City of Greenfield, sued the City after it released their redacted personal cell phone records in response to a data practices request. The records were released in response to a citizen’s data practice request, submitted in the wake of controversial decisions by the Greenfield City Council. Prior to their release, the records provided were redacted by the City’s data-practices compliance official so that only phone calls potentially concerning city business would be disclosed. Appellants then sued the City, claiming it violated the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (“MGDPA”) by disclosing the records. Appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing the cell phone records were not government data under the MGDPA. The district court held the cell phone records were not created or maintained by Appellants in their official capacities and therefore not government data, but left open the question of whether the records became government data under the MGDPA upon receipt or disclosure by the City. The parties then stipulated the records became government data upon receipt by the City and brought cross-motions for summary judgment. Appellants argued they were employees and thus their records constituted personnel data presumed private under the MGDPA. The City argued Appellants were elected officials and the records were presumptively public government data. The district court concluded the redacted personal cell phone records did not constitute personnel data and granted the City’s motion for summary judgment.
In a decision filed April 16, 2012, the Court of Appeals concluded these particular Appellants were solely elected officials and not employees for purposes of the MGDPA because the City did not consider them employees. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals deferred to multiple advisory opinions promulgated by the Commissioner of Administration which state a municipality can choose whether or not to treat its elected officials as employees for purposes of the MGDPA. The Court reasoned this approach was in accord with the fundamental purpose of the MGDPA to balance rights of data subjects to protect personal information and the right of the public to know what the government is doing. The Court further noted public policy favored making the records in question public, stating “[e]lected officials should not be able to evade public observation and scrutiny of their work by conducting all pertinent discussions on sensitive matters in private and then simply voting on a fait accompli at the public meeting.”
Paul Reuvers and Amanda Stubson represented the City of Greenfield.