To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
May 13, 2003; McLeod County
5/13/2003 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 April 21, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Simcha Plisner, an attorney, on behalf of his clients, Mr. And Mrs. X. In his letter, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his clients' rights to gain access to certain data maintained by McLeod County. In response to Mr. Plisner's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nan Crary, McLeod County Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated April 29, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Plisner's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County's position. On May 6, 2003, IPAD received a response from Michael Junge, McLeod County Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. Plisner, Mr. and Mrs. X asked for copies of data about them maintained by McLeod County Human Services. The data relate to a child protection matter. Mr. Plisner stated that they received 113 pages, for which they were charged $113.00. According to Mr. Junge, the County provided 108 pages at a charge of $1.00 per page, plus an audiotape at a charge of $5.00, for a total copy charge of $113.00. Mr. Junge provided to the Commissioner a copy of the McLeod County Fee Schedule. According to that schedule, the County charges $5.00 for a copy of an audiotape of child protection assessments and interviews, and $1.00 per page for a copy of Typed Reports of same. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Junge described the procedure the County follows to provide copies of child protection data to individuals. The original must first be copied. The employee must then read the entire document and delete any information which would identify the reporter, and then the item must be copied a second time, which is then provided to the person making the request. The $1.00 charge has been approved by the McLeod County Board of Commissioners to allow for the two copies of each page, plus the time of the employee for editing the document to delete nondisclosable information. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests copies of government data, the government entity may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. According to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, subpart 5, which governs access to private data, [t]he responsible authority may charge the data subject a reasonable fee for providing copies of private data. In determining the amount of the reasonable fee, the responsible authority shall be guided by the criteria set out in part 1205.0300 concerning access to public data. According to Mr. Junge, the County includes in its copy cost a charge for employee time to redact confidential data, or other data not accessible to Mr. and Mrs. X. However, according to section 13.04, the County may charge only its actual cost to produce the copies. Chapter 13 does not contain any provision allowing an entity to recover the cost of separating data about the requestor from private or confidential data about other data subjects. Therefore, to the extent that the County's copy charge includes costs for anything beyond the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies, its charges are not allowable. Government entities may charge their actual costs to produce copies of data on individuals, if they are able to document that those charges are permitted under Chapter 13. Furthermore, the County has not otherwise accounted for its charges and how they relate to the language in section 13.04. The fact that the County Board of Commissioners approved the fee schedule is not, in itself, sufficient to justify that the fees charged are allowable under section 13.04. The County ought to be able to make available specific, accurate data that document the basis of its photocopy charges. The County produced no data that support its copy fee, and thus, did not meet the burden here of establishing its actual and reasonable cost to produce copies of government data. The Commissioner has an additional comment. The fee schedule refers to copies of Typed Reports of child protection assessments and interviews. It is not clear if the County also maintains handwritten notes, or other data about the Xs, and if so, what it charges for copies of such data. According to the information provided, Mr. and Mrs. X asked for copies of all data the County maintains about them, not limited to typed reports. If the County maintains additional data about the Xs, it should make those data available to them without delay. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Plisner is as follows:
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Dated: May 13, 2003 |
Copy costs
No charge to search/retrieve/redact
Justification of costs
