September 15, 2003; City of Brainerd
9/15/2003 10:15:43 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: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
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:
|
Response to data requests
Explanation of data