January 6, 1994; Crow Wing County
1/6/1994 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 December 21, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Roy A. Luukkonen, who is the Crow Wing County Auditor. Enclosed with his request was a copy of a state Department of Human Rights charge and a series of letters discussing the issue described below. A review of the correspondence establishes the following: On October 4, 1993, Mr. Luukkonen wrote to John Remington Graham, the Crow Wing County Attorney, and asked Mr. Graham whether the 1993 legislative enactment of Chapter 370, Section, 7, a provision making long distance telephone bills of the legislature, judges, state agencies and political subdivisions public data, was superseded by provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA . On October 25, 1993, County Attorney Graham wrote to the Chair of the Crow Wing County Board. In that letter, he summarized issues raised by various county personnel about the status of telephone records in light of various provisions of the MGDPA and Chapter 370, Section 7. Mr. Graham reviewed a variety of statutory provisions, including the child abuse reporting act, Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556 and the welfare data and law enforcement data sections of the MGDPA, that appear to classify data, no matter where or what form it appears in, as private or confidential data. Mr. Graham then reviewed the Chapter 370 provision and concluded the clear impact of the legislative enactment was to make telephone bills of public officers of Crow Wing County public data. His reading of Minnesota Statutes Section 645.26, a portion of the statutory interpretation act, was that where two statutes are in conflict, the later enactment prevails. On December 2, 1993, Auditor Luukkonen received a request for access to data from a member of the public. Specifically, this individual asked the auditor to provide him with a list of long distance telephone calls made from the telephone extension assigned to a certain employee of the County Attorney's Office. This particular employee has filed a charge of discrimination against the County. In response to this request, the Auditor, also on December 2, wrote to Mr Graham. In that letter Mr. Luukkonen pointed out that while he was the custodian of the phone bills and telephone cost accounting records, Mr. Graham was the responsible authority for the data about his office under the MGDPA and as such, the County Attorney should decide whether this data should be released. On December 7, 1993, County Attorney Graham wrote to Auditor Luukkonen. Mr. Graham referenced the opinion he had done on October 25 and summarized that opinion by stating that the records of telephone calls made from bills paid on behalf of the County Attorney's office and any other office of the county are public data. Mr. Graham asked the Auditor to assist the citizen to view telephone records of the County Attorney's office. Following his receipt of the response from the County Attorney, Mr. Luukkonen requested this opinion from the Commissioner of Administration. Issue:
Although Mr. Luukkonen did not formally state an issue for the Commissioner's consideration in his request, the issue presented by the request can be stated as follows:
|
Government Data
Telephone records/bills