 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Honan v. County of Cottonwood8/30/2005
ly v. Univ. of Minn., 432 N.W.2d 189, 193 (Minn. 1988) (open meeting law did not apply to state university's advisory committee), review denied (Minn. Jan. 25, 1989); Minn. Educ. Ass'n v. Bennett, 321 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Minn. 1982) (open meeting law did not apply to school superintendent who advised board but was not himself a board member). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Honan's claim against Anderson for violation of the open meeting law.
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Claim
Count VI of Honan's complaint alleges that Anderson violated the data practices act when he failed to disclose certain information and disclosed other confidential information. A civil action for damages "may only be brought against 'a political subdivision, responsible authority, statewide system, or state agency which violates any provision of this chapter.'" Walker v. Scott County, 518 N.W.2d 76, 78 (Minn. App. 1994) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 13.08, subd. 1 (1992)), review denied (Minn. Aug. 24, 1994). A "responsible authority" is defined as an "individual designated by the governing body of that political subdivision as the individual responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data, unless otherwise provided by state law." Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 16 (2000); see also Minn. R. 1205.0200, subd. 14(A) (2001) ("An individual who is an employee of the county shall be appointed by the county board to be the responsible authority for any data administered outside the offices of elected officials.").
Based on our review of the pleadings, we conclude that Anderson cannot be considered the "responsible authority" under the act. Rather, the county's answer specifically states that the county appointed Jan Johnson, the County Auditor/Treasurer, as the "responsible authority" under Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 16. The district court thus did not err in dismissing Count VI as against Anderson.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; motion denied.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|