December 5, 2000; School District 625 (St. Paul)
12/5/2000 10:15:43 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 September 26, 2000, IPA received a letter from James Skalicky. In this letter, Mr. Skalicky asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 625, St. Paul. In response to Mr. Skalicky's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Patricia Harvey, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated October 2, 2000, were to inform her of Mr. Skalicky's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District's position. On October 25, 2000, IPA received a response from Nancy L. Cameron, Assistant General Counsel for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a letter dated July 27, 2000, Mr. Skalicky requested access to certain data on all teaching finalists that interviewed for a science teaching position (7-12) at St. Paul Schools. Specifically, Mr. Skalicky requested access to the following data:
In addition, Mr. Skalicky asked for the following information for each hired finalist:
The District responded to Mr. Skalicky's request in a letter dated October 19, 2000, subsequent to the Commissioner's notification of his intent to issue this opinion. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Cameron wrote, in reference to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, that the Commissioner does not have the authority to issue an advisory opinion here because the District had not made a determination regarding Mr. Skalicky's request as of the date of his opinion request. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Cameron's position. As he has previously opined, when a government entity fails to make any response to a request for access to government data, that is a determination for purposes of Chapter 13. (See, for example, Advisory Opinions 94-014, 96-003 and 96-006.) Ms. Cameron further wrote that Mr. Skalicky's request was unclear and required clarification, which the District requested in its October 19, 2000, response to Mr. Skalicky's July 27, 2000, request. Ms. Cameron also stated that the District's response was reasonable because Mr. Skalicky's request came at a time when the staff that would be called on to respond to the request were already burdened by the operational demands of the District. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Skalicky asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Data on public employees and applicants for public employment are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. For the most part, Mr. Skalicky requested access to public personnel data. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provide the time requirements regarding access to public government data. In part, section 13.03, subdivision 2 states, "[t]he responsible authority. . . shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner." (Emphasis added.) Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provides, in relevant part, "the responsible authority shall establish procedures to describe how [access to public data] may be gained. The procedures established shall be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03. . . . In such procedures, the responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a reasonable time." (Emphasis added.) The question at hand is whether the District responded to Mr. Skalicky's request as required by Chapter 13 and its implementing rules. In Advisory Opinion 96-003, the Commissioner opined: The Legislature has not provided a specific definition of prompt so guidance is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in The American Heritage Dictionary, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, prompt means on time; punctual; done without delay. According to the plain words of the statute, when read in light of the dictionary definitions, a response to a request for data, delivered six weeks later, cannot be considered prompt. Further, the Commissioner wrote: As defined in The American Heritage Dictionary, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, reasonable means within the bounds of common sense; not excessive or extreme; fair. Again, a response six weeks later, in a case in which the data requested were clearly identified, cannot be construed to be either prompt or reasonable. According to Ms. Cameron, the District received Mr. Skalicky's request on August 4, 2000. The District, responded, seeking clarification, in a letter dated October 19, 2000, some eleven weeks later. Such a response time is neither prompt nor reasonable. Ms. Cameron stated that Mr. Skalicky made his request when District personnel were, essentially, too busy to respond. Nonetheless, pursuant to Chapter 13, the District was obliged to respond to his request promptly and within a reasonable time. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Skalicky is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: December 5, 2000 |
Statutory construction (Ch. 645)
Entity determination under 13.072
Words and phrases construed (645.08)
