May 30, 2002; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)
5/30/2002 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:On May 3, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated April 29, 2002, from Jan Simon. In her letter, Ms. Simon asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding her access to certain data that School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, maintains. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Simon's request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 6, 2002, were to inform him of Ms. Simon's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On May 16, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Paul Cady, the District's Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts is as follows. On March 8, 2002, Ms. Simon made two separate written requests for access to data. (One of the requests is at issue in this opinion, the other is not.) Both letters were addressed to staff in one of the District's departments. In the letter which is at issue in this opinion, Ms. Simon wrote, I am requesting that I be able to immediately inspect the following data: All itemized bills, itemized receipts and itemized invoices from any and all manuals and materials that were purchased from the Crisis Prevention Institute Inc. in Brookfield, WI for the last three years. In a letter dated March 18, 2002, the Department to which Ms. Simon sent her letters responded to the March 8, 2002, data request which is not the subject of this opinion. According to Mr. Cady, the Department whose staff responded on March 18, 2002, also initiated a communication with the District's business department to obtain the bills, receipts and invoices from the Crisis Prevention Institute. Mr. Cady wrote: The business department provided the data to the Superintendent's secretary, rather than the [Department that had responded on March 18, 2002] for follow-up with Ms. Simon. It was the Superintendent's Secretary's understanding that Ms. Simon wanted copies and followed up by telephone with Ms. Simon to inform her that they were available. Ms. Simon did not inform the Superintendent's Secretary that she was requesting to inspect the data free of charge rather than receive copies for a charge. Ms. Simon requested a written letter which the Superintendent's Secretary drafted for Ms. Olson's (Superintendent responsible authority designee) signature. The April 11, 2002, letter from Ms. Olson to Ms. Simon states: You requested all itemized bills, itemized receipts and itemized invoices from any and all manuals and materials that were purchased from the Crisis Prevention Institute in Brookfield, Wisconsin for the last three years. The cost for collecting this material is $24.20. In her opinion request, Ms. Simon wrote, Mr. Giroux's secretary has called me twice asking that I make payment in order to inspect the data. I mentioned that I should not be charged to inspect the data. Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. Simon asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(a), if an individual makes a request to inspect government data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data. In the case of this opinion, in her March 8, 2002, data request (the one at issue in this opinion), Ms. Simon clearly asked to inspect data, not for the District to provide her with copies. However, for some reason, the Superintendent's secretary did not understand that Ms. Simon wanted only to inspect. The Commissioner does not understand why this is the case. It would seem that when the secretary telephoned Ms. Simon to advise her that the data were available and that there would be a fee, Ms. Simon's wish to inspect would have surfaced. Unfortunately, this apparently did not happen and there is a dispute over what was discussed. Ms. Simon says she mentioned that she should not be charged to inspect data and, according to Mr. Cady, the secretary says Ms. Simon did not inform her (the secretary) that she (Ms. Simon) wanted only to inspect. Regardless, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), the District is responsible for establishing procedures to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. In this case, Ms. Simon asked to inspect data. The District's response should have been to advise her how the District could comply with that request. In his comments, Mr. Cady wrote, The [Department that received the request], the Superintendent's Secretary, and responsible designees have all been trained and understand that individuals may inspect data free of charge. This is an appropriate response. Hopefully, continued training in how to deal with data practices requests will help to avoid future problems. If the District needs further assistance, training materials are available from IPAD. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Simon raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: May 30, 2002 |
Inspection
Free of charge
