December 8, 1999; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
12/8/1999 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 September 27, 1999, IPA received a letter from Maren Swanson, an attorney representing the City of Northfield. In this letter, Ms. Swanson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding Northfield's rights to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA.) Ms. Swanson's request required additional information and clarification with IPA staff. In response to Ms. Swanson's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Karen Studders, Commissioner of The MPCA. The purposes of this letter, dated October 12, 1999, were to inform her of Ms. Swanson's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the MPCA's position. On October 14, 1999, IPA received a response from Gordon E. Wegwart, Assistant Commissioner of the MPCA. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a letter to the MPCA dated June 9, 1999, Scott Neal, the Northfield City Administrator, requested the following information related to its wastewater system: [a] list of the specific odor complaints received by the MPCA, including the nature, time, date, and location of the alleged odor problem, as well as the identity (if known) of the person or persons making the complaint. Mr. Neal repeated his request to the MPCA in a letter dated June 14, 1999. In a letter to the MPCA dated July 1, 1999, Ms. Swanson requested copies of the following data: 1. The names and addresses of any persons who have complained to or otherwise contacted the MPCA or any agent or employee thereof regarding odor problems associated with the Northfield wastewater treatment facility. 2. The details of all such complaints, including but not limited to the nature, date, time and location of all alleged odor problems. 3. The dates and times all such complaints were received by the MPCA. 4. The results of air quality tests conducted by MPCA staff at the Northfield facility in May of this year. In a letter dated July 7, 1999, the MPCA transmitted the following data to Mr. Neal: a copy of the complaint information received by the Rochester Office of the [MPCA] between the weeks of March 14th and June 27th. . . .[and] a copy of the one air monitoring reading taken. . . . The complaint data consisted only of the number of calls received per week for the time period indicated. In a letter dated July 8, 1999, Mr. Neal wrote to the MPCA: [w]hile I appreciate your attempt to fulfill my request, the information you enclosed . . . relating to your logs of odor complaint calls is insufficient and is not an acceptable response to my requests. In a letter dated August 9, 1999, Rodney E. Massey, South District Manager for the MPCA, wrote to Ms. Swanson that the information [provided to the City] was presented in a format designed specifically to protect the identity of the complainant (section 13.44) . . . . Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. Swanson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are presumed to be public unless otherwise classified under state or federal law. Section 13.44 provides: [t]he identities of individuals who register complaints with state agencies or political subdivisions concerning violations of state laws or local ordinances concerning the use of real property are classified as confidential data, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 3. In her opinion request, Ms. Swanson stated: It is the City's interpretation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 13.44 that complaints . . . concerning the use of real property' does not include and could not reasonably have been intended to include complaints concerning odors allegedly produced by a municipal wastewater treatment facility. Rather, the statute is meant to shield the identity of persons who complain to a government agency regarding concerns such as health hazards or nuisances maintained on real property by someone who might seek retribution against the complainant, such as a landlord or neighbor. . . . . In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Wegwart stated: The MPCA does not agree with the arguments advanced by Northfield. First of all, the MPCA notes that Minn. Stat. section 13.44 is unambiguous and makes no exceptions to the requirement to protect complainant identity. . . . . The MPCA has some sympathy for Northfield's argument in that it needs to know the exact location and time of the complaint in order to ascertain whether the complainant correctly identified the wastewater treatment facility as the odor source. However, the MPCA believes that the summary data and other public information provided to Northfield . . . were adequate to meet its needs. . . . . The MPCA must take precautions to ensure that complainant identity cannot be discovered through comparison of the summary data to other information. See Commissioner of Administration Advisory Op. 094-009. Section 13.44 obliges government entities to protect the identities of individuals who complain about alleged violations of state laws or local ordinances concerning the use of real property. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Swanson correctly stated the primary reason that section 13.44 was enacted, namely, to protect identities of complainants who may be subject to retaliation. However, as Mr. Wegwart stated, section 13.44 does not except data about complaints made about publicly owned real property from that requirement. Accordingly, the data that Northfield is seeking from the MPCA that identify or could identify a complainant must be protected. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.) The data the MPCA provided to Northfield about specific complaints contained none of the detailed data requested, such as the nature, date, time and location of alleged odor problems, or the dates and times all such complaints were received by the MPCA. The Commissioner was not provided the complaint data from which the MPCA prepared summary data in response to Northfield's request. However, it appears that the MPCA could provide Northfield with at least some of the additional data requested, e.g., the nature, date and time of the complaint, and the date and time the complaint call was received by MPCA, while still protecting the complainants' identities. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Swanson is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: December 8, 1999 |
Property Data
Property complaint data (13.44)
