Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews new public data request policy; members ask for clearer wording
Summary
At a first reading, the board reviewed a proposed Policy 7.22 to govern public data and data-subject requests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Board members requested clearer definitions and placement of certain language before the policy returns for a second reading.
Roseville Area School Board members on Tuesday heard the first reading of a proposed new policy to govern public data and data-subject requests, Policy 7.22, intended to ensure district compliance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
The policy, presented by Executive Director Kenyatta McCarty, mirrors an MSBA/MASA model and sets procedures for how the district will receive, process and respond to requests for data that the district holds. McCarty described the draft as an adaptation of model language with minor, district-specific clarifications.
Board members asked detailed questions about definitions and organization of the draft. Several members said the wording in the definitions section, particularly the definition of confidential data on individuals and the ordering of defined terms, was difficult to follow. One member asked for an example of data that is "inaccessible to the individual subject," and McCarty said examples can include investigative notes and certain personnel records. Board members also asked whether student-record requests and personnel requests are handled under the same policy; McCarty said the draft is intended to cover any district data and that the district currently follows internal practices that mirror the model policy.
Board members suggested moving or highlighting language that explains the policy's applicability (for example, whether it applies to student records, personnel files, or both) and to provide clearer wording on "responsive data" and requests that are too general. The board and staff agreed to a second reading and revisions.
Why it matters: Minnesota law governs public access to government data, and school districts receive a growing number of requests. Clear policy language is intended to ensure timely compliance while protecting confidential information.
Next steps: Staff will revise the draft for clarity, including clearer examples and reordering or cross-referencing definitions, and return the policy for a second reading.
