January 16, 2001; Minnesota Department of Employee Relations
1/16/2001 10:17:43 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 November 20, 2000, IPA received a letter dated November 16, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible violation of X's rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, by the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER). IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Julien Carter, Commissioner of DOER, in response to X's request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department's position. On December 6, 2000, IPA received comments, dated same, from Commissioner Carter. A summary of the facts as presented by X is as follows. X wrote that since August 1, 2000, s/he has requested public and private data from DOER. S/he stated: Since August 1, 2000, on three occasions when I have contacted the Department of Employee Relations to request public government data, I have been required to identify myself and state my reasons for requesting public government data. The employees who violated the statute include [Y, a specific DOER employee] and other unidentified personnel. I declined, citing the data practices statute. X added that on November 16, 2000, s/he called DOER to request public information and was again asked to identify him/herself. X wrote that s/he declined to do so. Issue:In X's request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides: Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data. In his comments to the Commissioner, Commissioner Carter identified several occasions when X requested data from DOER. He wrote that in each of those situations, X voluntarily and without solicitation provided his/her name and address. Regarding the November 16, 2000, request, Commissioner Carter wrote that the DOER staff person did not ask X to identify him/herself or to indicate the reasons for his/her data practices request. Commissioner Carter added that providing X with a contact person at DOER for X's data practices requests is not a violation of section 13.05, subdivision 12. He wrote, The reason that DOER designated [DOER staff person Y] as X's point person is because of a growing concern that X was beginning to harass DOER staff. Commissioner Carter discussed that X has had numerous dealings with DOER and other state agencies over the past several years. In this case, there is a factual dispute which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. X alleges that on several occasions s/he was asked to identify him/herself and to justify requests for data. Commissioner Carter asserts that at no time did DOER staff ask X to identify him/herself or to justify any request. Section 13.05, subdivision 12, clearly states that government entities cannot require that individuals making requests for public data identify themselves or justify their requests, unless identifying or clarifying information is required to facilitate the response. If DOER employees requested identifying information and/or justifications for any requests, DOER is in violation of Chapter 13. If DOER employees did not request such information, no violation has occurred. Regarding DOER's designation of a specific person to deal with X's data requests, the Commissioner has the following comments. Commissioner Carter stated that due to the nature of its past association with X, DOER has designated a specific person to whom X must direct all data practices requests. This is not a violation of Chapter 13. Therefore, if X requests public data, as long as X's contact person at DOER does not ask X to identify him/herself or to justify the request, DOER is in compliance with Chapter 13. The Commissioner notes, however, that section 13.05, subdivision 12, does provide that a person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised by is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: January 16, 2001 |
Requests for data
Reason/justify request and identity not required (13.05, subd. 12)
To responsible authority or designated person, required
Written requests, procedures may require
