June 1, 2000; City of Woodbury
6/1/2000 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 March 13, 2000, IPA received a letter from Charles Robb, John and Shanyn Flaten, and Daniel M. Barrett, on behalf of the Markgrafs Lake Concerned Homeowners Association (MLCHA.) In this letter, MLCHA asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Woodbury. IPA staff requested that MLCHA clarify their opinion request; they did so in a letter dated April 3, 2000. In response to MLCHA's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Barry Johnson, Woodbury City Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated April 13, 2000, were to inform him of MLCHA's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On April 24, 2000, IPA received a response from James F. Lammers, City Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. Barrett, in August, 1999, he had read a newspaper article about a Lakeside townhome project to be built on Markgrafs Lake in Woodbury, and a $215,000 grant to Woodbury from the Metropolitan Council. On or about September 20, 1999, he went to the Woodbury City Administrator's office and requested access to data related to the project and the grant. Mr. Barrett was referred to the City Planner's office, where he repeated his request. The City Planner told Mr. Barrett that the City had no information on the project, and referred him to an individual at the Metropolitan Council. He subsequently received information from the Council, including three letters related to the project sent by Woodbury to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA.) According to Mr. Lammers, the City Planner also referred Mr. Barrett back to the City Administrator's office to see if there was additional information available there. Mr. Barrett did not return to that office. Mr. Lammers stated that the grant in question was applied for by the developer, not the City, and that the City did not participate in the grant process. Mr. Lammers stated that a development file was opened by the City after it received a complete application for the Project, which was submitted to the City on October 15, 1999. The Grant Agreement was forwarded to the City on November 4, 1999. According to Mr. Lammers: [b]ecause, as of September 20, 1999, the City had not received a formal application for the Project, and because as of that date the City had not been a participant in the grant process, the City had no data to provide to Mr. Barrett pursuant to his request. In a letter dated October 20, 1999, Ms. Flaten requested the following: I wish to be provided with access to and/or copies of any and all materials (including, but not limited to, (1) documents; (2) letters/correspondence to or from any and all city officials and city staff; (3) memorandums; (4) reports; (5) official/unofficial filings made to or by the City of Woodbury; (6) petitions made to or by the City of Woodbury; (7) maps; (8) charts; (9) audio cassettes; (10) video cassettes; and any other articles) that are either at Woodbury City Hall or under the control of the City of Woodbury that pertain in any way to any of the following subjects:
(Ms. Flaten subsequently withdrew her request for the data described in item 4.) In a letter dated October 26, 1999, Woodbury staff asked to meet with Ms. Flaten to go through her request. In a subsequent telephone call, City staff told Ms. Flaten that her request was vague and asked again to meet with her. In a November 2, 1999, telephone call, Ms. Flaten declined to meet and discuss her request, and asked that the data be made available to her. On November 3, 1999, Ms. Flaten reviewed the data the City had compiled in response to her request. At that time, the City gave her a letter that detailed those data, and further stated: I hope that the information we are now making available to you will satisfy your formal request. As I discussed with you on the phone last week, your request was quite broad and somewhat vague. Since we were unable to meet in person to review and clarify the specifics of your request, we did our best to assemble the information as we were able to best interpret the intent of your request. The three letters Mr. Barrett had obtained from the Metropolitan Council were not included in the materials provided to Ms. Flaten. Mr. Lammers characterized those letters as typical staff letters written at the request of the Developer in support of his application for a grant from the Metropolitan Council. He stated: Since no development file had been opened at the time these letters were written regarding the subject Project or the subject grant, copies of these letters were filed in a general correspondence file since there was no development file in which to place them. The letters, like all staff letters of this type, were also stored electronically under a general correspondence directory. Had Ms. Flaten's formal request for data included a request of any correspondence to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency regarding this Project (which letters she already had in her possession), or if she had requested documents regarding the grant process, the City Staff presumably could have and would have retrieved these letters as a part of her formal request. In addition, had the representatives of the MLCHA, who had copies of these letters in their possession as of October 20, 1999, simply advised the City of the date of the letters and the fact that they were written to the MHFA, the City could have electronically retrieved these letters as well. Issue:In their request for an opinion, MLCHA asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:There is no disagreement between Woodbury and MLCHA as to the classification of the data requested; they are public data. MLCHA believes the City erred in its failure to provide them with access to the three MHFA letters. Those letters, dated in February and July, 1999, contain the terms Duffy Development or Lakeside Townhomes. It is not clear just how specifically Mr. Barrett identified the data he was seeking when he asked for it at the City Administrator's office, or from the City Planner. Mr. Lammers stated that the City Planner had no personal knowledge of the grant, and referred Mr. Barrett to the City Administration Department, which advice Mr. Barrett declined. However, Mr. Barrett had already visited that office, and had been referred to the City Planner. Mr. Lammers remarked that the City periodically updates its Guidelines and Procedures for the Minnesota Data Practices Act, which are reviewed with City Staff. The Commissioner was not provided a copy of those policies and procedures, but presumably they contain information to ensure that requests for data are properly directed. Ms. Flaten clearly asked for any and all materials . . . that pertain to 1. Lakeside Townhomes . . . [or] 2. Duffy Development. According to Mr. Lammers, there was no project development file on the project set up at the time of Mr. Barrett's request; however, pertinent data were stored in files and electronically. That being the case, the City had sufficient information in the request to have made a search regarding the terms Duffy Development or Lakeside Townhomes to have led to the letters in question. State law provides that it is the government entity's responsibility to maintain data such that it is easily accessible for convenient use, per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1. The letters were maintained by Woodbury and should have been located in response to MLCHA's requests for access to data relating to the project. We acknowledge, however, that while the search for data relevant to the request could have been more diligent, it appears that the data would have been produced had it been located. It was reasonable for the City to attempt to clarify whether Ms. Flaten wanted to inspect or obtain copies of all the data she requested. However, in the Commissioner's view, Ms. Flaten did make a request of sufficient clarity to facilitate the appropriate response by the City of Woodbury. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by MLCHA is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: June 1, 2000 |
Requests for data
Sufficiency of request
