Facts and Procedural History:

On August 1, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Richard Olmstead. In his letter, Mr. Olmstead asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his rights with respect to certain data about him that are maintained by the City of Brainerd.

In response to Mr. Olmstead's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dan Vogt, City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated August 5, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Olmstead's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On August 25, 2003, IPAD received a response from Thomas Fitzpatrick, City Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.

In a letter dated July 30, 2003, Mr. Olmstead wrote to Mr. Vogt:

This letter [supersedes] previous request re meanings . . . .

Please provide me in writing an explanation as to the meaning of the following word [and] words as required per the Minnesota [Government] Data Practices Act [emphasis omitted]:

p. 29 hits used 3 times
p. 40 hits hit
p. 84 hits Line #6
p. 84 hit Line #12
p. 84 hit Line #19
[illegible] page # Line 15 hit

In a letter dated July 31, 2003, Mr. Vogt responded: I assume that you are making this request pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 13.03, Subd. 3 (a). It is not my responsibility under that Statute to explain the meaning of the word you have identified. Therefore, I am declining your request.

In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Fitzpatrick discussed the background of Mr. Olmstead's request, and provided copies of an earlier related data request from Mr. Olmstead, dated May 26, 2003. Mr. Fitzpatrick also referred to an April 24, 2003, data request from Mr. Olmstead.

The Commissioner believes that in this situation, in order to evaluate the City's response to Mr. Olmstead's July 30, 2003, data request, which is the issue of this opinion, it is necessary to review Mr. Olmstead's earlier requests and the City's responses.

In his May 26, 2003, data request, Mr. Olmstead asked the City to provide the specific meaning of some 95 words and/or phrases, including the words hit and hits, contained in documents in which he is a data subject. Mr. Olmstead asked, for example, that the City explain the meaning of 10,000 pages, appendix, voluntary, with, date and when.

Mr. Fitzpatrick described actions taken by the City to respond to Mr. Olmstead's initial request, including searching for Commissioner's Advisory Opinions that could shed light on the subject. Finding none, Mr. Fitzpatrick contacted IPAD director Donald Gemberling for assistance. According to Mr. Fitzpatrick:

On April 24, 2003, I spoke to [Mr. Gemberling] by telephone regarding Mr. Olmstead's request. During that conversation we discussed the circumstances in which a Responsible Authority has an obligation to explain the meaning of data. I understood, and my notes reflect, that your opinion was that this duty is limited and does not extend to providing the meaning of all words.

. . . .

My understanding at the end of our conversation on April 24th was that the duty to provide the meaning of data was limited to acronyms or very specialized data. It was also my understanding that the duty did not extend to providing the meaning of common or ordinary words. Based upon our discussion, I advised Mr. Vogt that he did not have a responsibility to explain the meaning of the words requested. Mr. Vogt responded to Mr. Olmstead's request accordingly.

Upon receiving Mr. Olmstead's May 26, 2003, request, Mr. Fitzpatrick again contacted Mr. Gemberling to discuss the City's obligation to respond to explain the meaning of words contained in data. Mr. Fitzpatrick provided a copy of his notes of that conversation: [a]s you can see, the notes reflect my continued understanding that [Mr. Gemberling's] interpretation of M.S. 13.04, Subd. 3 did not obligate the Responsible Authority to explain or interpret the meaning of commonly used words. Rather, the statutory duty extends only to clarifying the meaning of acronyms or other specialized terms. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he spoke again with Mr. Vogt and discussed his understanding of the City's obligation, based upon his conversations with Mr. Gemberling.

Upon receipt of Mr. Olmstead's July 30, 2003, request, Mr. Vogt consulted Mr. Fitzpatrick, and they discussed again Mr. Fitzpatrick's understanding based on his discussions with Mr. Gemberling. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he did not contact Mr. Gemberling a third time, as they had recently discussed this topic at length.

In summary, Mr. Fitzpatrick stated:

With no advisory opinions for guidance, I had twice contacted [Mr. Gemberling] and discussed this subject before the response now being challenged was issued. In reliance upon our conversations, I advised Mr. Vogt and he responded accordingly. The May 26th Olmstead request for meanings . . . had been faxed to and reviewed by [Mr. Gemberling.] It included a request for the meaning of 'a hit' and 'hits.' Since Mr. Vogt had no obligation to provide the meaning of these particular words in response to the May 26th request, there was no reason to believe that he had a duty to define them in response to the July 30th request.

This will be the first advisory opinion to address this issue. Because the City relied upon [Mr. Gemberling's] explanations given on two separate occasions on the same topic shortly before it made its response on July 31, 2003, it must be concluded that the City responded appropriately under the circumstances as they then existed.

Issue:

In his request for an opinion, Mr. Olmstead asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the City of Brainerd respond appropriately to a July 30, 2003, request by a data subject for the City to explain the meaning of certain data?

---

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3,

Upon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without any charge and, if desired, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data. [Emphasis added.]

The Commissioner acknowledges that Mr. Fitzpatrick made efforts to respond appropriately to Mr. Olmstead's requests, and relied upon his understanding of his conversations with Mr. Gemberling. In general, government entities do not have to explain the meaning of words in the sense of supplying dictionary definitions. However, the Commissioner is of the opinion that government entities do have to provide the meaning of common words if the meaning is not readily apparent in the context.

Mr. Olmstead asked the City to explain the meaning of the words hit or hits contained in data the City maintains. For example:

The question of whether or not the people who were the subject of these 'hits' should be picked up with or without probable cause was, according to [redacted] 'left open.' [redacted] We have not been able to find any occasions where any of the subjects of the 'hits' were ever stopped or arrested.

Do you recall any other incidents of these 'hits' that you have first-hand knowledge of?

And do you have first-hand knowledge of all these individuals, in other words, were you told by your [redacted] to put a hit on those people?

Those individuals were the subjects of the hit, as you understood it?

As noted above, Mr. Fitzpatrick took efforts to respond appropriately to Mr. Olmstead, including consulting with Mr. Gemberling. Given what the City understood of its obligations at the time, its response to Mr. Olmstead was appropriate. However, government entities are obligated to make reasonable efforts to explain words and phrases whose meanings may not be apparent without more explanation.

In this situation, it is the Commissioner's view that it is not reasonable to expect that a data subject could understand the meaning of the words hit and hits as used in the context. Accordingly, the City is obligated to explain to Mr. Olmstead what those words mean in the context of the data it maintains about him.

---

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Olmstead raised is as follows:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, based on its understanding at the time, the City of Brainerd responded appropriately. However, the City should explain the meaning of certain common words to the data subject, because, given the context, the data subject can not reasonably be expected to understand the meaning of those words.

Signed:

Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner

Dated: September 15, 2003

---