Primary navigation

    Opinion Library

    To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

    RSS feed

    Advisory Opinion 97-036

    August 20, 1997; City of Corcoran

    8/20/1997 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 PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.

    On May 30, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated May 28, 1997, from Chuck Lymangood. In his letter, Mr. Lymangood requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the City of Corcoran.

    PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Jeffrey Carson, Corcoran City Attorney, in response to Mr. Lymangood's request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 27, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Lymangood's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On July 8, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated July 7, 1997, from Mr. Carson.

    A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Lymangood is as follows. At a City Council meeting on March 27, 1997, Mr. Lymangood asked to see all the documents the council members had before them. He wrote, I was denied access to these documents and was told I would have to return to city hall the following morning to review copies. Mr. Lymangood stated he believes that the City distributes two sets of council meeting documents; one set goes to the council members prior to council meetings, and the other set (the house copy ), which is significantly abbreviated, is available to the public at the actual meetings.

    Mr. Lymangood wrote that at a council meeting on April 10, 1997, one of the agenda items related to the Loretta/Corcoran joint water system/tower. He stated:

    During the discussion of this item Mayor Larkin referred to the letter he had sent to the Mayor of Loretto. Earlier that day I was told the city hall only had a draft version' of that document. However, the councilmembers had a copy of the final version and one member was kind enough to provide me a copy....Neither the draft nor the final version was included in the house copy' which is all the material available to the public on a given evening. Again, the city council did not provide the public, at the beginning of the meeting, with the exact same material they were provided.


    Issues:

    In his request for an opinion, Mr. Lymangood asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
    1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, did the City of Corcoran properly respond to a March 7, 1997, request for access to the following data: all written materials received by the Corcoran City Council for purposes of that day's council meeting?

    2. Did the Corcoran City Council provide appropriate access to the public for all written materials discussed at the April 10, 1997, council meeting?


    Discussion:

    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 sets forth a government entity's obligations in responding to requests for access to public government data. Subdivision 3 of Section 13.03 provides that upon request, an individual shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data. In addition, subdivision 3 provides that if the requested government data are classified as not public, the entity must so inform the requestor at the time of the request or as soon thereafter as possible.

    In a situation involving a meeting of a body subject to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, the Open Meeting Law, the government entity has additional statutory obligations regarding the public's access to data. In part, Section 471.705, subdivision 1b, states:

    [at] least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda itemsof the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the governing body or its employees and:
    (1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;

    (2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or

    (3) available in the meeting room to all members


    shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the publicwhile the governing body considers their subject matter. (Emphasis added.)


    According to Mr. Lymangood and as reflected in the minutes of the March 27, 1997, council meeting, a copy of which was provided to the Commissioner, Mr. Lymangood requested access to copies of all written materials the council members had received for the meeting. The minutes state, [Mr. Lymangood] was handed the House' packet. He also requested copies of what was given to the Council in addition to the packet...He was informed that copies could be provided for him on Friday. (The council meeting was held on a Thursday.)

    In his response, Mr. Carson wrote:

    The City Clerk puts together a house copy of all documents and correspondence sent to each council member in their packets. The house copy is available at the meeting for inspection. There are times that the City Council receives documents during the course of a meeting that would not be found in the house copy. My personal observation (I do not attend all Corcoran meetings) is that any request by a member of the public to inspect or review documents received during a meeting have been honored. I am not aware of any instance where a member of the public has been denied access to such a document upon request.

    In the situation of the March 27, 1997, meeting, the council members apparently possessed data that were not made available to members of the public. When Mr. Lymangood asked for copies, he was informed that copies would be available the next day. Pursuant to Section 13.03, government data are accessible unless those data are classified as other than public. Based on the City's response to Mr. Lymangood's request, i.e., that the data would be available the next day, it does not appear Mr. Lymangood was denied access because the data were classified as something other than public. Further, as stated above, the City has additional obligations in providing access to data that are the subject of an open meeting. In this case, pursuant to the specific direction of Section 471.705, subdivision 1b, the City was required to make available at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items. Based on the information provided, the City did not meet this obligation.

    The second issue raised by Mr. Lymangood is very similar to the first issue. The minutes of the April 10, 1997, meeting state, [Mr. Lymangood] then informed the Council that he had requested a copy of a letter Mayor Larkin had wrote [sic] to Mayor Schmidt and was given a draft' copy by the City's staff instead of a copy of the original letter. He was then handed Councilor Lindsley's copy of the letter. In addition, Mr. Lymangood provided to the Commissioner a copy of the House packet of the materials for the April 10, 1997, meeting. As Mr. Lymangood asserted in his opinion request, neither the draft version nor Councilor Lindsey's version of the Mayor's letter were contained in the House packet.

    (In his response, Mr. Carson did not specifically address the second issue of Mr. Lymangood's opinion request.)

    As discussed above, pursuant to Section 471.705, subdivision 1b, at an open meeting, the public body is required to provide access to printed materials relating to the agenda items. In this case, according to the minutes, one of the agenda items for the April 10, 1997, meeting was a discussion of the Loretto/Corcoran joint water system/tower. Mayor Larkin's letter to Mayor Schmidt is regarding the joint water system/tower. Because the data in the letter are public and because the council members apparently possessed their own copies, a copy of the letter should have been available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body [considered the] subject matter. (See Section 471.705, subdivision 1b.) Although Mr. Lymangood did gain access to this letter, the access was achieved only by way of his making a specific request.

    Opinion:


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

    1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 and Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, subdivision 1b, the City of Corcoran did not comply with a March 27, 1997, request for access to the following data: all written material received by the Corcoran City Council for purposes of that day's council meeting.

    2. The City of Corcoran did not provide public access, as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705, subdivision 1b, to all written materials discussed at the April 10, 1997, council meeting.

    Signed:

    Elaine S. Hansen
    Commissioner

    Dated: August 20, 1997


    Open Meeting Law

    Printed materials

    back to top