April 6, 2000; South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department
4/6/2000 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On December 9, 1999, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of some clients. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his clients' rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department (SLMPSD.) IPA staff requested that Mr. Anfinson clarify his opinion request; he did so in a letter dated February 18, 2000. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John Anderson, Chair of SLMPSD's Coordinating Committee. The purposes of this letter, dated February 28, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask him to provide information or support for SLMPSD's position. On March 14, 2000, IPA received a response from Mehmet Konar-Steenberg, attorney for SLMPSD. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. SLMPSD is a joint powers entity that provides police services to the Minnesota communities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. In a letter to SLMPSD dated June 9, 1999, Mr. Anfinson referred to his clients' repeated requests for access to the log sheets or daily logs that are used by all SLMPSD officers to track their daily activities. Mr. Anfinson and SLMPSD representatives exchanged correspondence for several months regarding his clients' attempts to inspect, at no charge, the public data contained on the log sheets, among other concerns not at issue here. According to Mr. Anfinson, his clients are particularly interested in the first, second, and third columns of the forms, which would permit an estimate to be prepared of the percentage of calls attributable to each of the four constituent communities and the respective time invested by officers on behalf of each community. This information is significant because the contribution made by each community to the agency's budget is based on such data. Mr. Anfinson stated to the Commissioner that the log sheets in question cover a number of years, but did not specify a time period in his communications with SLMPSD. Mr. Konar-Steenberg described the log sheets as follows: The first section is at the top of the log sheet and has blanks for the name of the officer completing the form, the officer's badge number, the vehicle being used by the officer and its status, and other information. Immediately below is the second section, which consists of four columns. Officers use these columns to record specific data about incidents and other significant activities. In the first column, Source Complaint,' the officer records the manner in which the officer has received a request for assistance, i.e. from a radio dispatcher, from another officer in the field, etc. In the second column, Time Received,' the officer notes the time the officer received the request. The third column, Time Completed,' includes space for documenting the time the officer arrives ( A-') and clears ( C-') the scene. The fourth and largest column, Location and Type of Complaint/Action Taken' is where the officers report narrative details of incidents and other significant activities occurring during the shift. The third section is a single line at the bottom of the form consisting of five blanks preceded by a letter. The officers use four of these spaces ( E,' G,' S,' T') to record the time they have spent for that shift policing each of the four communities served by the SLMPSD. The fifth space ( O') is used to record time spent attending to other duties (such as administrative duties). The data on this line is used to develop the SLMPSD's budget. In a footnote, Mr. Konar-Steenberg added the following: Each community pays a share of the SLMPSD's budget proportionate to the hours that SLMPSD officers spend policing each community. This information gathered [sic] from the log sheets and entered into a computer database. The entries in section 3 are used for this purpose because they account for time spent on patrol and in other routine activities that are not always documented in section 2 of the form. In their correspondence with Mr. Anfinson, SLMPSD representatives told him that it would be very expensive and time-consuming to review and remove the not public data from the thousands of log sheets generated each year, and stated that SLMPSD would require prepayment of the costs involved. Mr. Anfinson objected, citing Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), which provides for free inspection of government data. Mr. Anfinson also disagreed with SLMPSD about the extent of not public data contained on the log sheets. In his responses to Mr. Anfinson and the Commissioner, Mr. Konar-Steenberg stated that it was his position that Mr. Anfinson's request was a request for summary data, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0200, subpart 16, and Part 1205.0700, subpart 6. As such, it was appropriate for SLMPSD to charge a fee to prepare the summary data. Mr. Konar-Steenberg also stated that he had offered Mr. Anfinson access to the aforementioned database that is a compilation of the data from section 3 of the log sheets. Mr. Anfinson stated to the Commissioner that his clients do not believe that the computer printouts' are an acceptable alternative form of access, because they are not confident that the printouts actually contain all of the data appearing on the log sheets. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Mr. Anfinson and SLMPSD agree that the log sheets contain both public and not public data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.82. They disagree about which provisions of Chapter 13 and its implementing Rules govern the question of access to the data. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (a) and (c), a government entity may not charge a fee for inspection of government data and may not charge for separating public from not public data. Mr. Anfinson takes the position that his clients have made a request that is governed by section 13.03, i.e., a request for access to inspect public data. According to Mr. Anfinson, SLMPSD is required to separate the public from the not public data, and provide his clients the opportunity to inspect the public data at no charge. Mr. Konar-Steenberg states that SLMPSD has been asked to create summary data, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0200, subpart 16, and Part 1205.0700, subpart 6. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0200, subpart 16: Summary data,' as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 19 means data which has been extracted, manipulated, or summarized from private or confidential data, and from which all data elements that could link the data to a specific individual have been removed. Summary data' includes, but is not limited to, statistical data, case studies, reports of incidents, and research reports. [Emphasis added.] Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0700, subpart 6, (B), provides that one method of creating summary data is: removing from the entity's report of any incident, or from any collection of data similar to an incident report, all unique personal identifiers so that the resulting report fulfills the definition of summary data in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 19. Pursuant to subpart 7, any costs incurred in the preparation of summary data shall be paid by the requestor. Mr. Konar-Steenberg also referred to the Department of Administration's Statement of Need and Reasonableness that accompanied the promulgation of Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205. In that Statement, there is specific mention of police incident reports as an example of summary data that could support Mr. Konar-Steenberg's position. In order to give effect to both rule and statute, the Commissioner reviewed the pertinent legislative history. The rule postdates enactment of section 13.82, but predates the section 13.03 provision that prohibits government entities from charging for separation of public from not public data. (See Laws for Minnesota 1981, Chapter 311, and 1985 Chapter 298, section 1. The rules were adopted in 1981.) Therefore, if the rule is in conflict with the later-enacted statute, then the rule cannot stand. (See section 645.26.) It is possible to create summary data by redacting personal identifiers from an incident report; the rule is applicable to that situation. However, it is important to distinguish between a request that requires preparation of summary data, and a request that just involves the separation of public from not public data. The Commissioner is of the opinion that once that distinction is understood, as discussed below, there is no conflict between the two provisions. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 19, Summary data' means statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. The definition of summary data is key to understanding the difference between preparation of summary data and separation of public from not public data. Summary data must be derived from what is otherwise completely private or confidential data. To create summary data, government entities are required to remove all personal identifiers from the private or confidential data. Other detailed private or confidential data do not need to be redacted, once the personal identifiers are removed. The principal reason for the summary data provision is to allow access to otherwise private or confidential data for research purposes. By contrast, separation of public from not public data is not just a process of removing personal identifiers. It is a process of separating all not public data from the public data, which government entities are required to do, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, when public and not public data are intermingled. Otherwise the right to free inspection of public government data could be frustrated simply by maintaining public and not public data together. The possibility that commingling of data could adversely affect public access is one of the reasons the Legislature requires government entities to separate public from not public data at no charge. Mr. Anfinson's clients did not ask for summary data. They asked SLMPSD to provide them with access to inspect, without charge, the public data contained in the log sheets. That is not a request that requires preparation of summary data, it is a request that requires separation of public and not public data, as provided at section 13.03, subdivision 3. In his response to Mr. Anfinson, Mr. Konar-Steenberg also referred to section 13.82, subdivision 9, which provides: When data is classified as public under this section, a law enforcement agency shall not be required to make the actual physical data available to the public if it is not administratively feasible to segregate the public data from the confidential. However, the agency must make the information described as public data available to the public in a reasonable manner. Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the interrelationship between this provision and that of section 13.03, subdivision 1, which requires government entities to maintain government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Under section 13.82, subdivision 9, SLMPSD may, for example, provide access to photocopies, rather than originals of the log sheets. As long as it provides access to all the public data contained therein, it may do so in a reasonable fashion. However, the requirements of section 13.03 still apply. If government entities neglect their obligations to maintain data in easily accessible formats, this is the kind of situation that can arise. SLMPSD might want to consider a redesign of the log sheet in order to zone the not public data, so that they are easier to remove for purposes of inspection of the public data. It appears that the parties have made attempts to reach a reasonable resolution in this matter, efforts the Commissioner encourages. However, SLMPSD is obligated to provide free inspection of the public data in the log sheets, and it must bear the cost of separating the not public from the public data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: April 6, 2000 |
Law enforcement data
Legislative authority and intent
Statutory construction (Ch. 645)
Summary data
Dispatch logs
Physical data access (13.82, subd. 16 / subd. 9)
Separation of public, not public data
Public and not public data
Later enacted statute
Summary data (See also: Educational data - Summary data)
