To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
June 2, 2004; City of Prior Lake
6/2/2004 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 April 22, 2004, IPAD received a letter from John and Linda Meyer, in which they asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the City of Prior Lake's determination about a data practices issue. In response to Mr. and Mrs. Meyer's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Prior Lake City Manager Frank Boyles. The purposes of this letter, dated April 27, 2004, were to inform him of the Meyers' request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On May 3, 2004, IPAD received a response from Suesan Leaacute; Pace, Prior Lake City Attorney. Ms. Pace submitted additional comments on May 26, 2004. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a February 7, 2004, e-mail, the Meyers asked the City for access to data that documents the actions that the City of Prior Lake has taken to resolve each of the 2002 dated complaints [that have been] resolved. The Meyers previously had asked the City for information about how the City resolved its 2002 zoning ordinance complaints. Many of those requests were not deemed by the City to be requests for data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. However, prior to the Meyers' February 7 request, the City compiled some complaint data in a matrix, which it provided to them. The Meyers told the City that the matrix did not respond to their request for details about how zoning ordinance complaints were resolved, to which the City replied, in a February 2, 2004, e-mail, that the matrix contained all the information it had. Subsequently the Meyers made their February 7, 2004 request, to which the City did not respond. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Pace said that after receiving notice about this opinion, she reviewed the City's 2002 zoning code complaint files. She wrote: As I previously stated, the City did not provide Mr. Meyer with access to the actual files because of the necessity to not disclose the name of the complainant. Instead, the City provided Mr. Meyer with a matrix which summarized the complaints without including the complainant's name. Upon reviewing the actual '2002 Complaints' file, it appears that it would have been more appropriate for the City to have made a copy of all of the 2002 complaints, redacted the complainant's name and then provided Mr. Meyer with access to the file. In the future we will follow this procedure. . . . . In an effort to accommodate Mr. Meyer's request, I have advised the City to copy the entire 2002 Complaint file, redact the complainant's name and address and make the files available to Mr. Meyer to review. Obviously, if requested, copies will be made available to Mr. Meyer. . . . . As you review the actual data maintained by the City and the information provided to Mr. Meyer in the matrix, I think you will see that Mr. Meyer was provided with essentially the data that was in the file. Obviously, the file data does have additional notes and comments that were not available from viewing the matrix. I recognize that the matrix was not responsive to Mr. Meyer's request pursuant to Minnesota [Statutes] Chapter 13. The City intends to work on developing a system whereby it may not need to go through the process of copying the files and redacting complainant's names [sic]; perhaps some separate legend or numerical numbering system will make it easier for the City to fulfill its responsibilities to the public in a more expedient fashion. Issue:In their request for an opinion, Mr. and Mrs. Meyer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Upon request for access to public government data, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300.) Pursuant to section 13.44, subdivision 1, the identities of individuals who register complaints with . . . political subdivisions concerning violations of . . . local ordinances concerning the use of real property are classified as confidential data. The Meyers' February 7, 2004, request to the City followed a lengthy correspondence, and came after the City thought it had provided the data the Meyers requested, in the form of the matrix. Nonetheless, the City was obligated to respond to the revised request within a reasonable time. According to Ms. Pace, the City will make the complaint files available for the Meyers to inspect by June 14, 2004, four months after the date of their request. This is not timely. The Commissioner has some additional comments. Ms. Pace acknowledged that the City's attempt to respond, while providing essentially the data that was in the file, did not fulfill its obligation under Chapter 13. The Commissioner recognizes that the City tried to comply with its obligation to provide the Meyers with access to the data they asked for, while also protecting the identity of the complainants. Ms. Pace has stated that the City will revise its data management system in order to provide the public with appropriate access, i.e., to maintain the data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use, as it is required to do under section 13.03, subdivision 1. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. and Mrs. Meyer is as follows:
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Dated: June 2, 2004 |
Property Data
Property complaint data (13.44)
