February 27, 2002; Scott County
2/27/2002 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 January 28, 2002, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson on behalf of his client, the Shakopee Valley News. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client's right to gain access to certain data maintained by Scott County. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David J. Unmacht, Scott County Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated January 29, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County's position. On February 8, 2002, IPA received a response from Mr. Unmacht. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. Anfinson, Scott County commissioned a study concerning possible pay and benefits for County employees. A News reporter asked repeatedly for a copy of the study, which the County consistently denied. Mr. Anfinson also stated that the reporter has been told that Scott County has given a copy of the market study to representatives of one of the labor unions involved in negotiations with the County. Mr. Unmacht stated: [w]hile the market study has been discussed with the negotiating teams of some of the unions . . . it has not been released to the members at large of any union, nor has it been formally presented to the County Board of Commissioners or released to the public. He also stated that the County plans to use the survey information to prepare for our position in arbitration. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:The Commissioner was not provided a copy of the study, so the following discussion is based on the County's assertion and Mr. Anfinson's description of the data as relating to contract negotiations with County employees. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, subdivision 1 (c), 'labor relations information' means management positions on economic and noneconomic items that have not been presented during the collective bargaining process or interest arbitration, including information specifically collected or created to prepare the management position. (Emphasis added.) According to subdivision 2, labor relations information data are not public. Mr. Anfinson stated that a News reporter was told that the County provided a copy of the study to at least one labor union. Mr. Unmacht neither confirmed nor denied that assertion; he stated only that the study has been discussed with representatives of more than one labor union, and that it has not been released to the members at large of any union, nor has it been formally presented to the County Board of Commissioners or released to the public. That raises the question of whether those discussions, and possible dissemination of the report in its entirety, represent a presentation of the study data for purposes of section 13.37. The facts in this regard are not entirely clear, but the County has confirmed that the study has been discussed with union negotiating teams and has not denied the claim that the study has been released to at least one of the unions. From the information provided, the Commissioner must conclude that the study data were presented during the collective bargaining process or interest arbitration, and are therefore public. Furthermore, Mr. Anfinson stated that although the County has repeatedly denied the News with access to the study, the County has never furnished a citation to the statute on which its refusal is grounded. It is not clear whether the News asked the County to furnish the statutory basis for its denial of access to the study. If the News did so, then the County was obligated to provide the specific legal basis for its denial, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (f). Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: February 27, 2002 |
Response to data requests
Definition (subd. 1(c))
