In the Matter of: KSTP-TV v. Metro Transit, Below, Metropolitan Council, Relator. , 2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 68 ( 2015 )

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-1957
In the Matter of: KSTP-TV,
Respondent,
vs.
Metro Transit,
Respondent Below,
Metropolitan Council,
Relator.
Filed August 24, 2015
Affirmed
Chutich, Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
File No. OAH 8-0305-31782
Mark R. Anfinson, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
David D. Theisen, Sydnee N. Woods, Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, Minnesota (for
relator)
Considered and decided by Kirk, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Chutich,
Judge.
SYLLABUS
Data recorded by an on-board video system in public buses and maintained by a
government entity for several reasons, and not solely because the bus driver is a
government employee, are public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act.
OPINION
CHUTICH, Judge
Relator Metropolitan Council challenges an administrative-law judge’s order
compelling production of video recordings of two incidents that occurred in 2013 on
Metro Transit buses, contending that the administrative-law judge erroneously concluded
that the video recordings are public data. Because we determine that the data in question
are public and do not fall within the definition of “personnel data” under the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 1 (2014),
we affirm.
FACTS
The facts of this case are undisputed. Metropolitan Council is a “public
corporation and political subdivision of the state” that serves the Twin Cities
metropolitan area. See Minn. Stat. § 473.123, subd. 1 (2014). The council operates,
among other things, a large fleet of buses through its Metro Transit division. All Metro
Transit buses have digital video systems, consisting of five cameras, which record events
occurring on and immediately adjacent to each bus. The system captures audible sound
as well.
In July and September 2013, two Metro Transit bus drivers were involved in two
separate and unrelated incidents while each was driving a bus. In each instance, transit
officials undertook investigations that involved downloading portions of the video
recordings from the buses to determine whether the bus drivers should be disciplined for
their conduct. Transit officials determined that neither incident warranted discipline.
2
Respondent KSTP-TV requested copies of the video recordings of each incident.
Metropolitan Council denied the requests, claiming that the portions of the video
recordings that it had reviewed were nonpublic “personnel data” on the bus drivers under
Minnesota Statutes section 13.43 (2014). The council also claimed that it lacked the
ability to separate the public data on the video recordings from the nonpublic “personnel
data.”
KSTP filed a data practices complaint with the Minnesota Office of
Administrative Hearings. After a hearing, the administrative-law judge determined that
Metropolitan Council violated the data practices act and that KSTP was entitled to
disposition as a matter of law. In so finding, the administrative-law judge rejected the
council’s contention that because portions of the video recordings were reviewed for
investigatory and disciplinary purposes, the video recordings could be withheld as
containing private “personnel data” on the bus drivers.
The administrative-law judge found that the council created the video recordings
for a variety of “service and safety-related functions” and the video recordings
documented events that occurred in public spaces when members of the public were
present. In fact, the judge noted that the council acknowledged that the portions of the
video recordings that it did not review are public data and available to anyone who
requests the footage.
The administrative-law judge further noted that the purpose of classifying
“personnel data” that does not result in discipline as nonpublic is to protect public
employees from the taint of unproven allegations. Here, where the video recording
3
system itself does not “editorialize,” the administrative-law judge concluded that this
public policy purpose is not undermined.
Accordingly, the administrative-law judge determined that the video recordings
were public data, ordered the council to furnish them to KSTP, and then stayed the order
pending appeal. Metropolitan Council appealed by writ of certiorari.
ISSUE
Are data recorded by an on-board video system in public buses public data or
private “personnel data” on the bus driver under Minnesota Statutes section 13.43 when
the government entity maintained the video recordings for a variety of reasons?
ANALYSIS
Metropolitan Council appeals from the administrative-law judge’s order
compelling it to furnish the requested video recordings to KSTP. After a final decision
on a data practices complaint is issued by an administrative-law judge, the aggrieved
party is entitled to judicial review. Minn. Stat. § 13.085, subd. 5(d) (2014). This court
may affirm the decision, remand for further proceedings, or reverse or modify the
decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been prejudiced because the
decision is, among other things, affected by an error of law, unsupported by substantial
evidence, or arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2014).
The issue presented here—whether video recordings from public buses are public
data or private “personnel data” under the data practices act—is a question of first
impression. It is also an issue of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. See
Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 839 N.W.2d 527, 531 (Minn. 2013). “The object
4
of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of
the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014). “When legislative intent is clear from the
statute’s plain and unambiguous language, we interpret the statute according to its plain
meaning without resorting to other principles of statutory interpretation.” City of
Brainerd v. Brainerd Invs. P’ship, 827 N.W.2d 752, 755 (Minn. 2013).
In examining the language of a statute, “we construe words and phrases according
to their common usage.” KSTP-TV v. Ramsey Cnty., 806 N.W.2d 785, 788 (Minn. 2011)
(citing Minn. Stat. § 645.08 (2010)). We must also “read and construe a statute as a
whole and must interpret each section in light of the surrounding sections to avoid
conflicting interpretations.” Id. (quotation omitted). When relying upon the plain
statutory text, “we read words and phrases to avoid absurd results and unjust
consequences.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Turning to the application of the act, the parties agree that Metropolitan Council is
a “government entity” subject to the act and that the video recordings are “government
data.” See Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subds. 7 (defining “government data”), 7a (defining
“government entity”) (2014); see also Minn. Stat. § 13.01, subd. 1 (2014) (stating that all
government entities are subject to the act). The act “regulates the collection, creation,
storage, maintenance, dissemination, and access to government data in government
entities.” Minn. Stat. § 13.01, subd. 3 (2014). It seeks “to balance the rights of
individuals (data subjects) to protect personal information from indiscriminate disclosure
with the right of the public to know what the government is doing.” Demers v. City of
Minneapolis, 468 N.W.2d 71, 72 (Minn. 1991). A “complex and technical” law, “[t]he
5
Act operates through a system of classification and how the data are classified ultimately
determines who has access to the data.” Wiegel v. City of St. Paul, 639 N.W.2d 378,
381–82 (Minn. 2002).
The data practices act mandates that all government data are public unless the data
are specifically classified by law as “not public.” KSTP-TV, 806 N.W.2d at 788. Section
13.01, subdivision 3 states, “This chapter . . . establishes a presumption that government
data are public and are accessible by the public for both inspection and copying unless
there is federal law, a state statute, or a temporary classification of data that provides that
certain data are not public.” Minn. Stat. § 13.01, subd. 3; see also Minn. Stat. § 13.03,
subd. 1 (2014) (stating that government data “collected, created, received, maintained or
disseminated by a government entity” is public unless otherwise classified). “‘Not public
data’ are any government data classified by [law] as confidential, private, nonpublic, or
protected nonpublic.” Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 8a (2014).
The council claims that the video recordings are “not public data” because section
13.43 classifies this data as private “personnel data” on the bus drivers. It contends that
the bus drivers are the subjects of the video recordings and that when the council
downloaded and maintained the video recordings specifically to evaluate the “conduct,
actions, and behavior” of the bus drivers, the audio and video excerpts became
“personnel data” under section 13.43 of the act. The council further argues that because
neither bus operator was ultimately disciplined, the data on the video recordings
permanently became private “personnel data” under this section’s provisions. See Minn.
6
Stat. § 13.43, subds. 2, 4; Demers v. City of Minneapolis, 486 N.W.2d 828, 831–32
(Minn. App. 1992).
The plain language of section 13.43 does not support the council’s argument.
While it is true that “personnel data” of public employees are private unless specifically
listed as “public data” in another subdivision, see Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subds. 2, 4, the
council cannot show that these video recordings meet the definition of “personnel data.”
The definition of “personnel data” is straightforward. “Personnel data” are
“government data on individuals maintained because the individual is . . . an employee of
. . . a government entity.” Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 1. But the parties disagree as to
three definitional issues: whether data in these video recordings are (1) “data on
individuals”1 that were (2) “maintained,” (3) “because” the bus drivers are Metro Transit
employees.
The record shows as a matter of law that, even assuming without deciding that the
video recordings are “data on individuals,” the other two prerequisites are not met. As
the council acknowledged, and the administrative-law judge specifically found, these
video recordings serve “a variety of service and safety-related functions for the agency.”
These purposes presumably include criminal investigations, accident investigations,
monitoring passenger behavior and needs, as well as evaluating the performance of
personnel. Given the administrative-law judge’s unchallenged factual finding concerning
the many uses of the video recordings and the practice of Metro Transit to routinely
1
The act defines “Data on individuals” as “all government data in which any individual
is or can be identified as the subject of that data.” Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 5 (2014).
7
preserve these video recordings for a period of time, regardless of whether any
complaints occur, the video recordings are not data “maintained because” the bus drivers
are employees of Metro Transit. See Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 1. Accordingly, they do
not fall within the plain language of section 13.43 and cannot be classified as “personnel
data.” The video recordings are therefore public data under the data practices act.2
While factually dissimilar to this case, the supreme court’s decision in Demers
nevertheless supports our determination that the video recordings are public data. In
Demers, a college student sued the City of Minneapolis for a declaratory judgment that
nonpending and noncurrent police-department internal-affairs complaint forms are public
data. Demers, 468 N.W.2d at 72. The city countered that the identifying information of
those persons who filed complaints against Minneapolis police officers are private
“personnel data.” Id. at 73. The city refused to disclose that information. Id. at 72.
The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the student and concluded that the
“information identifying complainants on nonpending, noncurrent police department
internal affairs complaint forms is public government data under the [data practices act].”
Id. at 74. The court reasoned,
The plain language of these statutes indicates that personnel
data are data that identify the employee who is the subject of
the data. The police officer, whose identity is public data
under section 13.43, is the employee who is the subject of the
data. The complainant is neither the employee nor the subject
of the data. Accordingly, as held by the trial court and the
2
Because we determine that the video recordings are not “personnel data,” we do not
reach the council’s argument that “personnel data” are permanently classified as private
when no discipline is imposed as a result of an investigation. See Minn. Stat. § 13.43,
subd. 2(a)(5).
8
court of appeals, information identifying the internal affairs
complainant is not “personnel data” at all.
Id. at 73.
The principle demonstrated in Demers holds true here as well. Data that are not
initially classified as private “personnel data” are not automatically converted to private
data merely because the data are used for personnel purposes. Video recordings from
public buses are maintained for a variety of reasons. Although the video recordings were
eventually downloaded and used to review the bus drivers’ conduct, that investigatory
use does not mean that the video recordings became “personnel data.”
The council disagrees and presents a timing argument as to when the data’s
classification should be assessed, asserting that the act “acknowledge[s] and, in [some]
circumstances, require[s] data to change classifications.” It contends that, while the
video recordings are public data while the cameras are recording on the bus, once the
video recordings are downloaded to review and to evaluate the conduct of the bus drivers,
the video recordings’ classification changes permanently to private “personnel data.”
Because the requests for the video recordings here were made when the video recordings
were already being used for personnel purposes, the council contends that the private
“personnel data” classification applies, citing section 13.03, subdivision 9 (2014), in
support.3 But KSTP asserts, and we agree, that this subdivision resolves which version of
3
Subdivision 9 provides that “the classification of data is determined by the law
applicable to the data at the time a request for access to the data is made, regardless of the
data’s classification at the time it was collected, created, or received.” Minn. Stat.
§ 13.03, subd. 9.
9
the statute applies when the statute has been amended. Here, there was no intervening
amendment to the “law applicable to the data.”
And as we have already provided, the video recordings’ classification as public
data is not forfeited because they are maintained in part for personnel purposes. Nor does
the presence of a public employee change the classification of a recording of events that
occurred in public when the recording was originally maintained by the government
entity for many purposes. Accordingly, when KSTP made the data request, the video
recordings were public data that KSTP was entitled to access.
Public policy supports our reading of the plain language of the definitional section
of 13.43 to exclude these video recordings from the classification of “personnel data.” In
the context of this case, classifying these video recordings as public data makes sense.
The driving force behind section 13.43’s classification of certain data as private is to
“protect the privacy of government employees.” Demers, 468 N.W.2d at 73. But any
concern for protecting a public employee’s personal information is lessened by the public
setting and nature of the employee’s actions here. While driving a public transit bus
throughout the public highways and byways of the metropolitan area, the driver’s actions
are hardly private; how a driver performs his duties is highly visible to passengers, and
even to nearby pedestrians and motorists.
Moreover, any concerns that a public employee may be exposed to the stigma of
unproven allegations or to the potential bias of exaggerated reporting is alleviated by the
nature of the video recording system. The system records regardless of who is operating
the bus, who is on the bus, or what is happening in or around the bus.
10
Finally, as KSTP asserts, interpreting section 13.43 broadly to mean that data
originally classified as public data can be converted, perhaps permanently, to private data
because they are used in a personnel investigation that did not result in discipline may
allow manipulation by government entities to prevent public access to certain
government data.4 During the course of a personnel investigation, for example, a
government entity could potentially claim that virtually any data serve a role in its
investigation and thereby reclassify those data as private “personnel data.” Such data
could, in turn, remain permanently classified as private if no discipline is imposed. This
result would be contrary to the crux of the act—that all government data are presumed
public unless otherwise classified by statute or other law. Minn. Stat. § 13.01, subd. 3.
DECISION
Because the video recordings were maintained for a variety of purposes, and not
solely because the bus drivers were government employees, they are public data. We
affirm the order of the administrative-law judge compelling Metropolitan Council to
furnish the on-board bus video recordings to KSTP.
Affirmed.
4
Neither KSTP nor the record suggests any improper motivation by Metropolitan
Council in withholding the data here.
11