April 28, 2006; Minnesota Department of Corrections
4/28/2006 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 March 16, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated March 14, 2006, from Stephen Danforth. In his letter, Mr. Danforth asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Department of Corrections. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Joan Fabian, Commissioner of the Department, in response to Mr. Danforth's request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 21, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. Danforth's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department's position. On April 14, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated April 12, 2006, from Randy Hartnett, Policy and Legal Services, Data Compliance Official. A summary of the facts as Mr. Danforth provided them is as follows. In a letter dated January 22, 2006, he wrote to the Department and asked for access to various types of data. Mr. Danforth wrote, In the event that you do have possession of, or control of, or access to any respective data item requested herein, please indicate in your response the copying cost rate, and the total cost, to provide me a single, full copy of the data as described in that specific item. In his opinion request, Mr. Danforth wrote, To date of this letter, I have not received any response from [the Department] in response to that data request letter. Issue:Based on Mr. Danforth's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Further, previously issued advisory opinions have established that, when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Hartnett noted that Mr. Danforth had made at least one previous data request to the Department: Mr. Danforth's requests for data are complex and involve a number of data elements, not all of which are entirely clear. They related to the MSOP [Minnesota Sex Offender Program], which is a clinical program of the DHS housed at MCF [Minnesota Correctional Facility] - Moose Lake. the request was reviewed by the chief counsel for the DOC to determine whether it fell under Minn. Stat. section 13.39 as civil litigation data. While the conclusion was that the data probably did not, this added additional time to the process. Mr. Hartnett then went though the various elements of Mr. Danforth's January 22, 2006, data request, stating that certain data can be found in specific Department policies, certain data are maintained by DHS, certain data do not exist, and that in a couple of instances, it is not clear what Mr. Danforth is asking for. The Commissioner has the following comments. In his January 22, 2006, data request, Mr. Danforth asked for access to certain data - whether he was asking to inspect or to obtain copies is not entirely clear. As of seven weeks later, the date of his opinion request, he had not received a response from the Department. In the Commissioner's opinion, this was not appropriate or timely. Assuming the Department has not yet responded to Mr. Danforth's January 22, 2006, request, it should do so promptly, first by clarifying whether he is asking to inspect the data or have copies. The Department should locate the specific policies that are responsive to the request and provide them either for inspection or in the form of copies. If the Department is not clear about the data Mr. Danforth is seeking, it should seek clarification. In addition, the Department needs to advise Mr. Danforth what data it does not maintain. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Danforth raised is as follows:
Signed: Dana B. Badgerow
Dated: April 28, 2006 |
Inspection
Response to data requests
Inspection vs. copying, in general
Untimely, generally
