October 13, 2004; Minnesota Department of Education
10/13/2004 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 September 3, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a determination of the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) about a data practices issue. IPAD asked Mr. Pachl to supply additional information, which he did on September 7, 2004. In response to Mr. Pachl's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Alice Seagren, Commissioner of MDE. The purposes of this letter, dated September 9, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department's position. On September 24, 2004, IPAD received a response from Chas Anderson, MDE Assistant Commissioner. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a letter dated April 6, 2004, Mr. Pachl asked MDE for a copy of any special education fiscal complaints filed with MDE against Mahtomedi ISD #832 from 2000 to present as well as any MDE findings and documentation of District corrective actions and/or responses regarding same. In response, MDE provided Mr. Pachl with redacted data. Mr. Pachl wrote again to MDE, in a letter dated July 19, 2004, and asked for the legal basis for the redaction. In a letter dated August 20, 2004, MDE responded that it is unable to disclose this information because it could be personally identifiable information under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32 [and therefore classified as private]. In his opinion request, Mr. Pachl asked whether MDE had responded appropriately to his requests, given that they sent me redacted data and didn't tell me the legal basis for the redaction . . . . [and] [w]hen I wrote and asked them the reason - it took them a month to respond. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Anderson stated that MDE had properly redacted private data from the data it provided to Mr. Pachl. She wrote: On April 6, 2004, Mr. Pachl requested copies of MDE complaint decisions. On April 15, 2004, MDE provided Mr. Pachl the public information. That was a timely response. MDE did not deny Mr. Pachl access to government data in April 2004; it provided him the information as he requested. There is no requirement in Chapter 13 that a government agency - when disclosing public data - must explain the legal basis for redacting the private data so that the person receives public data. Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3(f) (which requires a government agency to cite the specific statutory section as the basis for which it denied access to requested data) has no application to the April 2004 request and response because MDE provided Mr. Pachl access to the data he requested. With respect to Mr. Pachl's July 2004 request for the legal basis for the redaction, Ms. Anderson wrote: When someone other than the subject of the data submits a request for public data, the agency must comply with the request in an 'appropriate and prompt manner.' Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 2; Minn. R. 1205.0300, subp. 3. In addition, when a government agency denies access to data, the law requires that the agency inform the requesting person of the determination 'in writing as soon after that time as possible.' Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3(f). In reassessing whether or not Mr. Pachl was entitled to the name of the complainant, MDE had to make multiple factual and legal determinations. For example, MDE staff had to consult with employment and licensing records (to determine whether the complainant was an employee of the district). MDE had to check whether the parent gave written consent for disclosure of the information. MDE also consulted with legal counsel. It was important that MDE assure that it does not violate multiple federal or state laws to comply with Mr. Pachl's request. At the end, MDE concluded that the data Mr. Pachl requested remained private data and it promptly notified Mr. Pachl of its determination in writing as soon after that time as possible. In sum, MDE's response was appropriate and reasonably prompt in light of the significant factual and legal issues raised by Mr. Pachl's request. Ms. Anderson also discussed the classification of the redacted data. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:The Commissioner notes that although it is his understanding from Mr. Pachl's written request that the classification of the redacted data is not at issue in this opinion, MDE properly redacted the data, which are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3 (f): If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based. [Emphasis added.] Ms. Anderson stated that this statutory provision has no application to Mr. Pachl's initial data request. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), states that a government entity must provide the legal basis for denying access to data, upon receipt of the request, or as soon as possible thereafter. That requirement applies to situations like this one, in which a government entity must redact otherwise public data. The purpose of the requirement in section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), is so that an entity provides a data requestor with as much information as possible about why certain data may not be accessible. The data requestor then can determine if s/he has a basis upon which to contest the entity's determination. Accordingly, upon determining that it would need to redact data in order to respond properly to Mr. Pachl's April 2004 request, MDE should have so informed him, and should have cited to him the legal basis for redacting the data. Had MDE done so, Mr. Pachl would not have needed to make his subsequent request. Ms. Anderson stated that in response to Mr. Pachl's July request, MDE had to take numerous actions to determine, in essence, how the redacted data are classified. MDE should have done that at the time it was preparing its response to his initial request, and should have made and preserved a record of that determination. (See section 15.17.) Ms. Anderson did not state any reason that the data might have changed classification subsequent to Mr. Pachl's initial request for those data. Also, Mr. Pachl asked MDE to provide the legal basis for the redaction on July 19, 2004; MDE responded in a letter dated August 20, 2004. Given that MDE ought to have determined the classification of the redacted data in April 2004, the Commissioner does not believe it was reasonable for MDE to take four and one-half weeks to respond to Mr. Pachl's July 2004 request. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:
Signed:
Kent Allin
Dated: October 13, 2004 |
Redaction
Response to data requests
Denial of access to data – authority required (13.03, subd. 3(f))
