Discussion:

Prior to addressing Ms. Graham's concerns, the Commissioner needs to respond to Ms. Leppink's assertion that he lacks authority to issue this opinion.

The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Leppink. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, he may issue an opinion upon request of any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by [a government entity] regarding that individual's rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. Here, Ms. Graham alleges that DLI has not responded to her data requests within the statutorily-prescribed time frame, i.e., that DLI has violated her right to gain access to government data. The Commissioner does have authority to issue this opinion.

Issue 1

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry respond appropriately to a request for public access to data made on November 15, 2000?

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time. Although the Legislature did not define reasonable time, the Commissioner has stated in many previous opinions that it is relative to the amount of data requested.

In her response, Ms. Leppink wrote that there are many factors affecting how long it takes an entity to comply with a request. She stated:

These factors, all of which were present in this case, include but are not limited to the number and frequency of requests for data an individual submits to an agency, the amount of data the individual is requesting, the personnel and resources the agency has to comply with the request at the time the request is made, whether public and not public data must be separated, whether there are legal issues regarding whether data is public and the complexity of those legal issues...to name just a few.

Ms. Graham requested data on November 15, 2000, and apparently had received no acknowledgment or data from DLI as of December 20, 2000, more than a month after her request. (Ms. Leppink did not dispute this in her comments.) The Commissioner does not know the type or volume of data that Ms. Graham requested. He knows only that she asked for public data pursuant to 13.43. Therefore, he cannot comment on whether DLI should have provided all data responsive to Ms. Graham's request by the date she requested this opinion. However, regardless of the volume of the request, it is the Commissioner's opinion that DLI, if unable to provide all the data by December 20, 2000, should have acknowledged Ms. Graham's request, should have given her an estimate as to the time required to respond, and, if possible, should have provided her with some of the data. Because it appears DLI took none of these actions, the Commissioner is left to conclude that DLI has not responded in a timely manner.

An additional note is in order. In her opinion request, Ms. Graham wrote that the data she requested on November 15, 2000, should have been immediately available according to MN Statute 13.03, Subd. 3. This is not correct. As discussed above, and as the Commissioner has discussed in many previous opinions, section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, require that government entities respond to requests for public data in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. There is no language in section 13.03 requiring entities to respond immediately.

Issue 2

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, did the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry respond appropriately to a request for access to the Department's public access procedures provided for in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b)?

The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted the language in section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). It became effective on January 1, 2001, and provides:

The responsible authority shall prepare public access procedures in written form and update them no later than August 1 of each year as necessary to reflect any changes in personnel or circumstances that might affect public access to government data. The responsible authority shall make copies of the written public access procedures easily available to the public by distributing free copies of the procedures to the public or by posting a copy of the procedures in a conspicuous place within the government entity that is easily accessible to the public.

In her comments, Ms. Leppink wrote, At the time [Ms. Graham] requested DLI's public access procedures [she] was advised by DLI of the effective date of the provision and that DLI would be in compliance with the provision on its effective date. Since putting its public access procedures in effect on January 1, 2001, DLI has provided X with a copy.

Technically, Ms. Leppink is correct that prior to enactment of section 13.03, subdivision 2(b), Chapter 13 did not explicitly require entities to prepare and to post written procedures explaining how the public can gain access to public data. Ms. Leppink wrote that DLI provided Ms. Graham with a copy of the public access procedures sometime between January 1, 2001, and January 9, 2001 (the date of Ms. Leppink's letter). The Commissioner considers this to be a timely response.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Graham raised is as follows: