Discussion:

The language of Section 13.03 makes it clear that government entities are required to develop procedures to assure that the public is provided prompt access to public data. In order to develop and implement proper public data access procedures, entities must determine the classification of the data they maintain. The requirement that entities determine the classification of the government data they maintain is fundamental to the operation of all of Chapter 13. It is not possible for them to comply with the requirements of the statute if they do not make these determinations.

The legislature has dealt with this issue explicitly, in the case of data on individuals, by requiring responsible authorities to prepare a public report which describes the types of data entities maintain that are classified as private or confidential. (See Section 13.05 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.1500.) Even though that same requirement is not made explicitly for data not on individuals, an entity cannot respond promptly to requests if data classification determinations are not made. These determinations are central to any entity's compliance with Sections 13.03, 13.05, and other provisions of Chapter 13.

The issue is whether the City has complied with its obligations to provide Mr. Wolter with prompt access to the public data he requested. 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.

The City did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the procedures it has developed to ensure that it is in compliance with the public access provisions of Chapter 13. Presumably it has developed these procedures. However, Ms. Happe said that she was unable to make the data available at the time she received Mr. Wolter's request because she needed ...a reasonable period of time to research the accessibility of the data being requested under Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.03.

Ms. Happe also stated that it is her position that the City's having taken thirteen working days to make its determination regarding the accessibility of the data is not unreasonable, given the volume of Mr. Wolter's data request. Mr. Wolter requested access to all account ledgers and checkbook ledgers from 1988 through 1994, along with supporting invoices, cancelled checks, and all Bloomington Fire Department operating procedures and other documents used to support the maintenance of those accounts. Owing to the volume and complexity of Mr. Wolter's request, the Commissioner concurs that thirteen working days, in this case, is not an unreasonable time frame in which to make the data available.

However, the problem with the City's position is its assertion that it can deny the public access to data while it conducts legal research to determine the classification of the data. Government entities have an affirmative obligation to make the determinations of data classification as necessary to provide prompt access to public data. To the greatest extent possible, in order to assure its continuing compliance with Chapter 13, the City should have been able to determine how the data sought by Mr. Wolter were classified at the time he made his request, based on an examination of the public report required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1, and other reference materials. If the City, as a matter of practice, were to determine the classification of its data in advance of public requests for access, it would be better able to respond promptly, i.e. without delay, to those requests.

It is also possible that for certain data requests, government entities may need a reasonable amount of time to separate public from not public data. In many instances it is to the entity's advantage to maintain government data in a fashion that makes it easy to separate public from not public data, and therefore more conveniently accessible. However, it is not always possible or even desirable to do so. Nonetheless, the fact that at times the separation of public from not public data will require time and effort does not relieve entities of their obligation to provide appropriate and prompt access to government data. (See Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn.App. 1993.))

Further, it is not unreasonable for government entities, when responding to a request for access to data, to review the data to ensure that appropriate access is provided. For example, the legislature changes classifications of data on an annual basis, through amendments to Chapter 13 and other statutes. That is in part why Section 13.05, subdivision 1, requires that the public report be updated on an annual basis. It is reasonable for agencies to need to verify that recent changes to Chapter 13 do not affect the classification of data they are treating as public. However, an entity's compliance practices are not reasonable if it must make data classification determinations any time it receives a request for access to data.

Entities are obligated to establish procedures to ensure prompt and appropriate access to public data, and they will be able to go a long way toward adhering to that legislative policy if they verify, on an ongoing basis, the classification of the government data they maintain. If they develop their compliance practices in accordance with the requirements in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205, it certainly will be easier and more efficient for their data classification references to be updated annually, rather than having to start anew each time they receive data requests.

Opinion: