April 28, 2004; City of Minneapolis
4/28/2004 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 March 11, 2004 IPAD received a letter from Michelle Gross and Christopher Coen. In their letter, Ms. Gross and Mr. Cohen asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their access to certain data that the City of Minneapolis maintains. In response to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, the City's Data Practices Compliance Official. The purposes of this letter, dated March 17, 2004, were to inform him of Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On April 9, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated April 6, 2004, from Mr. Steiner. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated September 3, 2003, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote to Mr. Steiner and asked to inspect the public portions of City documents from the last ten years that contain public data pertaining to City of Minneapolis police officers. They then stated: This data includes: employee identification number, actual gross salary, salary range, contract fees, actual gross pension, salary range, contract fees, actual gross pension, the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits, the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration including expense reimbursement in addition to salary, job title and bargaining unit, job description, education and training background, previous work experience, date of first and last employment, the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship including a buyout agreement, work location, work telephone number, badge number, and honors and awards received. Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.43, subdivision 2, makes this data public data. Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen asked to inspect the data by September 17, 2003. Patrick Marzitelli, Assistant City Attorney, responded to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen in a letter dated September 15, 2003. He wrote: ...Because your request includes no fewer than 805 active personnel files, as well as 501 non-active files...it is unlikely we can have this data available for your review by September 17, 2003.... ...we would like to schedule a meeting as soon as possible to coordinate the planning of how and when the above data can be reviewed by you. Hopefully, we can agree on a review schedule consistent with your work hours or other pressing matters either of you may have. Whether or not these review sessions can be conducted on a weekly, biweekly, or monthly basis is difficult to determine at this stage. But we would value your input and look forward to meeting with both of you. There followed correspondence between the parties regarding a meeting date. A meeting eventually took place on November 20, 2003. In a letter dated February 4, 2004, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote to Mr. Steiner. They stated their understanding of what data the City had agreed to provide and the order in which the City would provide those data. Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote, To date, Mr. Marzitelli has failed to furnish us with any of the above data. We have waited patiently since the November 20th, 2003 meeting, but to no avail....We again request that you make the data available immediately. In a letter dated March 1, 2004, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen again wrote to Mr. Steiner asking why the City had not provided the data they requested on September 3, 2003. In their opinion request, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen wrote: ...On November 21st we received an email from [the City] with attachments of generic job descriptions for police officer, police sargent [sic], and police lieutenant. On November 21st we also received an email from [the City] with an attachment of the [Minneapolis Police Department] collective bargaining agreement. To date, however, we have not received any other data... Issue:In their request for an opinion, Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when an individual requests data of which s/he is not the subject, 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). In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Steiner wrote: The meeting with Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen was attended by the following City staff: Mr. Marzitelli, Deputy Chief Sharon Lubinski and Bill Champa, the Human Resources Generalist assigned to the Police Department. In this meeting, the staff for the City described the process and significant time required to prepare large numbers of personnel files for public inspection. Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen agreed to prioritize their request to first immediately receive certain data that could be provided electronically. Additionally, City staff agreed to produce other data for inspection by Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen that could be collected in report form. Following the inspection of these reports, the preparation of the individual personnel files was to begin and a regular schedule to review these files was to be established. Mr. Steiner then wrote that on November 21, 2003, Mr. Marzitelli emailed to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen the current collective bargaining agreement with the Police Federation and certain job descriptions. Mr. Steiner added that City staff generated reports of other information and, apparently, were waiting for a phone call from Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen to set up a time to inspect the reports. Mr. Steiner stated: Mr. Marzitelli never received a phone call requesting a meeting to inspect the reports. The City's Responsible Authority did receive a letter from Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen on February 3rd renewing their request. Unfortunately, through miscommunication with staff the letter was not promptly addressed. [Minneapolis Police Department] staff has been directed to begin the preparation of the department personnel files for sworn officers for inspection by Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen. The preparation and inspection of these files will occur in stages to prevent the need for preparation of all files prior to inspection. [Minneapolis Police Department] staff estimates that approximately forty-five to fifty files can be prepared per week. By copy of this letter, the City is informing Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen that their [Minneapolis Police Department] contact who will be responsible for providing access to the prepared personnel files as well as the previously discuss [sic] reports is Martin Rafferty, Manager of Police Operations.... The Commissioner has the following comments. Given the voluminousness of Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen's request, it seems reasonable that the City determined it needed to break up the request and respond by providing a continual flow of data for Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen to inspect. However, it seems all action came to a halt shortly after the November 20, 2003, meeting. The Commissioner is unable to determine whether part of the agreement reached at the meeting included Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen calling to set up an appointment for inspection. The Commissioner also is unable to determine whether both parties are clear about what was agreed to at the meeting. For these reasons, the Commissioner thinks it would have been wise for the City to put the agreement in writing. Regardless of what either of the parties believed to be the time frame decided upon at the November 20, 3004, meeting, when Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen sent their February 3, 2004, letter to Mr. Steiner, they communicated clearly that they still wanted access to the remaining data. It appears the City did not communicate again with Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen until April 6, 2004, when Mr. Steiner provided comments to the Commissioner after Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen requested an advisory opinion. This is not appropriate. Furthermore, the Commissioner questions whether Mr. Steiner's assertion that the City will prepare only 45-50 files per week is appropriate and timely. Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen requested data from what appears to be at least 1300 personnel files. If the City prepares 50 files a week, it will take the City at least 26 weeks, or six to seven months, to provide the data to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen. This seems excessive, especially given the requirement in section 13.03, subdivision 1, that government entities keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. For all of the reasons stated above, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the City has not complied with the requirements of Chapter 13 in responding to the September 3, 2003, request. Also, the Commissioner urges the City to re-evaluate its response time so that it can get the data to Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen in a more timely manner. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Gross and Mr. Coen is as follows:
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Dated: April 28, 2004 |
Response to data requests
Untimely, generally
