March 10, 1995; City of Blaine
3/10/1995 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:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.On February 21, 1995, PIPA received a written request for an opinion dated February 15, 1995, from Paul Garvie in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion on the issue cited in the Issue section below. Attached to this request were copies of two letters. The first letter, dated January 4, 1995, is from Mr. Garvie to Paul Ostrow, an attorney for the City of Blaine. In this letter, Mr. Garvie described several ways in which Blaine was restricting his access to view records relating to pending and levied assessment information. The second letter, dated February 8, 1995, is a response to Mr. Garvie from Mr. Ostrow. In response to Mr. Garvie's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Donald Poss, City Manager of the City of Blaine. The purposes of this letter, dated February 22, 1995, were to inform Mr. Poss of Mr. Garvie's request, to ask him or Blaine's attorney to provide information or support for the City's position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On March 2, 1995, PIPA received a response via facsimile from Paul Ostrow, attorney for Blaine. A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. In his correspondence to PIPA, Mr. Garvie included a copy of a letter he had written to Mr. Ostrow. In reading this letter, it is apparent that Mr. Garvie had attempted to inspect data maintained by Blaine relating to pending and levied assessments. Mr. Garvie noted that he was advised by Blaine that, ...[he] cannot look up any of this information [himself], that the City will do this for [him] if [he drops] off a list on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday, that the list will be available the following Monday, Wednesday or Friday, and that there will be a $5.00 charge per parcel. [He has] also been advised that if [he needs] the information the same day, the charge will be $10.00 per parcel.... Mr. Garvie asserted that because the data he seeks are public data, Blaine's policy of charging for inspection of public data is in violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3. The essence of Mr. Ostrow's February 8, 1995, written response to Mr. Garvie is very similar to the response PIPA received from Mr. Ostrow. Mr. Ostrow states that the actual issue in this matter is whether a commercial enterprise is entitled to benefit, without any cost to it, from the enterprise's access to a system and data base compiled by a publicly funded municipality. He added, ...We believe that the imposition of a reasonable charge for this information is entirely consistent with Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3 which allows reasonable charges for information having commercial value if the data base or a system is developed with a significant expenditure of public funds.... Mr. Ostrow also noted that if Mr. Garvie was simply viewing the data in question, ...the Assessments Clerk for the City of Blaine would be removed from her work station while waiting for Mr. Garvie to complete his search. In the alternative, the City would be required to purchase a new computer and equip a work station at public expense for the private benefit of Mr. Garvie or other commercial enterprises. Finally, requiring access to the City's data base rather than allowing the Assessments Clerk to obtain the information and provide copies for a minimal charge could threaten the security of the information system....
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Garvie asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
There appears to be no dispute regarding the classification of the data Mr. Garvie is seeking. Mr. Garvie asserts that special assessment information is public government data and Mr. Ostrow, on behalf of the City of Blaine, makes no attempt to challenge this assertion. Indeed, based on the existing presumption in Chapter 13 that all government data are public unless otherwise classified, and given that assessment information does not appear to be classified anywhere as not public, the data sought by Mr. Garvie are public government data.
Language in the first paragraph of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides the public with the right to inspect public government data at no cost.
Based on the language in Section 13.03, subdivision 3, it is clear that an individual inspecting public government data may not be charged for that inspection.
However, Mr. Ostrow arrives at a different conclusion by applying the language in the second paragraph of Section 13,03, subdivision 3. That paragraph relates to individuals requesting copies of public government data that have commercial value.
Indeed, the statute is clear that a government entity has the authority to charge, in addition to the permissible copying fee, an extra amount for copies of public government data if the data have commercial value and are a substantial and discrete portion of or an entire formula, pattern, compilation, device, or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds. However, the flaw in Blaine's position is that the charge described in Section 13.03, subdivision 3, can be invoked only when a person requests copies of the data. Mr. Garvie has not requested copies of the data to which he seeks access. He has asked only to inspect the data. Because there is no provision in Chapter 13 permitting government entities to charge fees for inspection of public data, it is not appropriate for Blaine to charge Mr. Garvie a fee to view Blaine's special assessment data. Finally, Mr. Ostrow's comments about the difficulties Blaine will experience if it permits inspection of the assessment data. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivisions 1 and 2, government entities are responsible for keeping records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use, and for establishing procedures to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. If the policies and procedures developed by the City of Blaine for inspecting certain public government data are, as Mr. Ostrow suggests, cost-prohibitive and lacking in security, it is within Blaine's purview to alter its policies and procedures. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Garvie is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: March 10, 1995
|
Commercial value
Copy costs
Inspection
Commercial value
Free of charge
