May 1, 2001; Special School District 1 (Minneapolis)
5/1/2001 10:15:43 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 March 20, 2001, IPA received a letter dated March 15, 2001, from Loren Piller. In his letter, Mr. Piller asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that Special School District 1, Minneapolis, maintains. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Carol Johnson, District Superintendent, in response to Mr. Piller's request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 23, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Piller's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District's position. On April 5, 2001, IPA received a response, dated April 4, 2001, from Margaret Westin, Assistant District General Counsel. A summary of the facts according to Mr. Piller is as follows. Mr. Piller sent a letter, dated December 12, 2000, to Kay Sack, the responsible authority for the District. He referred to an October 23, 2000, letter he received from Dan Loewenson, Assistant to the Superintendent, and asked for the following:
Ms. Sack responded in an e-mail dated March 2, 2001. She wrote that Mr. Loewenson would be contacting him to determine the additional information you need to have. Mr. Piller contacted Mr. Loewenson via e-mail on March 3, 2001, and wrote, If you do not intend to give me the information I have requested, please cite a statute that will help the Administrator of the State of Minnesota determine the validity of your decision. Mr. Piller sent another e-mail to Mr. Loewenson on March 8, 2001, asking if Mr. Loewenson had received the March 3, 2001, e-mail. In his opinion request, Mr. Piller wrote that he had not received any response from Mr. Loewenson. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Piller asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request for public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance and states that the response must be made within a reasonable time. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Westin wrote: Mr. Pillar [sic] has requested copies of complaints, faculty surveys and comments and suggestions made about changing part of a memorial at Burroughs Elementary School. Special School District Number 1 has provided Mr. Pillar [sic] with all written records of the action taken. In addition, several representatives of the District have met personally with Mr. Pillar [sic] to explain how the action taken is consistent with Federal and State law and District policy. [Chapter 13] does not require the District to create data in response to a request for data....Mental processes of public officials does [sic] not constitute government data.... In addition, the District may not release to Mr. Pillar [sic] the identities of individuals who registered complaints with the District to the effect that the Memorial constituted violated provisions of the state Constitution. Accord, Minn. Stat. section 13.44. There is a factual dispute regarding this matter which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. Mr. Piller asserts that after making his December 12, 2000, data request, Ms. Sack did not acknowledge receipt of his request until March 2, 2001 - approximately 11 weeks later. Mr. Piller also asserts that as of the date he submitted his opinion request - March 15 - he had yet to receive any response from the District. Ms. Westin asserts that the District has provided Mr. Piller with all written records of the action taken. The Commissioner, however, does have the following comments. Although Ms. Westin stated that the District has provided Mr. Piller with all records of the actions taken, she did not discuss whether the District specifically responded to Mr. Piller's December 12, 2000, request. The Commissioner acknowledges that the third and fifth items in that request appear technically not to be requests for government data and therefore are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. It appears, however, that the first, second, and fourth items are requests for government data. Therefore, the District was required to respond promptly, appropriately, and within a reasonable time. Ms. Westin is correct that the District is not required to create data to respond to a request. She is also correct that if certain data are classified as not public, the District may not release those data to the public. However, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), if the District had determined that certain data are unavailable to Mr. Piller, the District should have so informed him shortly after he made his request. Ms. Westin asserted that some of the data are not public pursuant to section 13.44. The Commissioner notes that he does not agree that this section classifies as confidential the names of persons who have complained to a school district about a mural on one of its buildings. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Piller raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: May 1, 2001
|
Copy costs
Existence of data
Response to data requests
Requestor must be informed
Property complaint data (13.44)
