January 16, 2001; Special School District 1 (Minneapolis)
1/16/2001 10:16:43 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 person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On November 15, 2000, IPA received a letter dated November 14, 2000, from Jeffrey Bradt. In his letter, Mr. Bradt requested assistance from the Commissioner in obtaining certain data maintained by Special School District 1, Minneapolis. In an e-mail dated November, 22, 2000, Mr. Bradt clarified that he was seeking an advisory opinion. In two additional e-mails, both dated and forwarded to the District on December 4, 2000, Mr. Bradt explained that he had received some information from the District. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Johnson, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Bradt's request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform her of Mr. Bradt's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District's position. On December 11, IPA received comments, dated December 5, 2000, from Dan Loewenson, Assistant to the Superintendent. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated September 7, 2000, Mr. Bradt requested the following information from Mr. Loewenson: 1. Total compensation paid to all Minneapolis Public School employees, by employee, in calendar year 1999. The information should include: Mr. Bradt wrote he believed that providing the information on a diskette in the form of an Excel Spreadsheet would be the least costly. He also enclosed $50 to cover any charges. On September 18, 2000, the District acknowledged receipt of Mr. Bradt's request and sent Mr. Bradt data in response to his items 8-16. On October 4, 2000, Mr. Bradt sent a follow-up letter to Mr. Loewenson and enclosed another $50, reiterating his request that the data be provided in an electronic format. On October 24, 2000, Mr. Bradt sent an e-mail to Mr. Loewenson. He expressed concern that the District had not yet sent him the data. He wrote, Given, then, that this information is already overdue, I am requesting that - rather then [sic] add to the delay - you send it to me as soon as possible and bill me for any charges over $100. Also, as noted in my letters, my strong preference is that the information be sent on diskette as an Excel spreadsheet. In his December 4, 2000, e-mail to IPA staff, Mr. Bradt wrote: [t]he only information I have received thusfar [sic] are copies of the [District's] collective bargaining agreements. Although those agreements contain information relative to items 8-16, that information is of no use without knowing how many persons are actually employed in each of the units, in which job titles, and their total compensation. That is the information I requested in items 1-7. I have received no information relating to those items. In addition, I have not received any information relative to item 17 of my request. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Bradt asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities are required to respond to requests for public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides that entities must respond within a reasonable time. Regarding Mr. Bradt's item 17, Mr. Loewenson wrote to the Commissioner, I am sending to you [the Commissioner] and to Mr. Bradt information he requested on our agreement with National Benefits. Mr. Bradt made his request on September 7, 2000. It took the District nearly 2 frac12; months to provide the contract information. This is not reasonable and therefore is not a timely response. Regarding Mr. Bradt's items 1-7, Mr. Loewenson wrote to the Commissioner: [w]e have been working on a report which meets his specific requirements and still complies with our legal parameters under [Chapter 13]. This is a new report for us since we have not yet received a request like this before...We believe we will be able to deliver the information he has requested within the next couple of weeks. Please be assured that the district, in no way, is reluctant to provide this public data to anyone. In this case, Mr. Bradt has requested information in a specific format and containing specific content... Mr. Bradt is under the impression that producing a report such as he requested should have taken less time than it did. He wrote: [w]hile I was employed at [the District] as the Executive Director of Human Resources, I had [the District's human resources information systems specialist] produce an earnings history report very similar to the information I requested in my Sept 7 letter....[t]hat report took - at most - two weeks to generate. It should have taken even less time this second time around. The issue here is whether the District was required to create data to respond to Mr. Bradt's request. If so, and that appears to be the District's position, the request and the time in which the District must respond is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. As the Commissioner has stated in previous opinions, government entities are not required to create data to respond to a request. If responding means formatting the data differently than those data are maintained, it is up to the requestor and the entity to work out details of cost and time of response. The Commissioner would like to add, however, that before the District agreed to create for Mr. Bradt a report made up of public data, it probably should have advised him that he could have inspected and received copies of the public data in the format in which the District maintains those data. If Mr. Bradt had requested the raw data, the request would have been subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Bradt raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: January 16, 2001 |
Copy costs
Existence of data
Response to data requests
New data or different format not required
Untimely, generally