Primary navigation

    Opinion Library

    To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

    RSS feed

    Advisory Opinion 96-006

    January 30, 1996; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

    1/30/1996 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:

    For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.

    On December 12, 1995, PIPA received a FAX dated December 13, 1995 (the Commissioner assumes this date is not correct), from Harold Meier. In his letter, Mr. Meier requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter MDNR.

    In response to Mr. Meier's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ron Sando, Commissioner of the MDNR. The purposes of this letter, dated December 15, 1995, were to inform Commissioner Sando of Mr. Meier's request, to ask him or the MDNR's attorney to provide information or support for the MDNR's position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. The Commissioner did not receive a response from the MDNR. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Meier and Commissioner Sando were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.)

    A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. As part of his opinion request, Mr. Meier submitted a copy of a letter, dated September 27, 1995, sent by registered mail to Commissioner Sando. (Also according to documentation submitted by Mr. Meier, the MDNR received this letter on September 29, 1995.) In his letter to Mr. Sando, Mr. Meier wrote:

    I am writing this letter to formally request the release to me of the report gathered by the state Attorney General's Office in investigating allegations of quota impositions by area supervisor in the DNR's Division of Enforcement, pursuant to a complaint by the Minnesota Conservation Officers Association. It is my understanding that this report is public information under the Minnesota Data Practices Act.

    On January 5, 1996, PIPA received, from the MDNR, copies of documents that were apparently simultaneously mailed to Mr. Meier. A letter accompanying the documents, from MDNR staff to Mr. Meier, stated:

    In response to your request of September 27, 1995, I have enclosed the report of the investigation of the allegation that quotas were set by a DNR Area Enforcement Supervisor. As you will see, the report has some information blacked out. This is because the report contains personnel data and the Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, makes personnel data private.

    Upon receipt of those documents, PIPA staff contacted Mr. Meier who confirmed that, during the week of January 8, 1996, he had received data from the MDNR. Mr. Meier also stated that he still wished to have this opinion issued.


    Issue:

    In his request for an opinion, Mr. Meier asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
    Has the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources complied with the public access requirements of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 when a member of the public requested access to government data and, after approximately ten weeks, has received no response?


    Discussion:

    Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provide the time requirements regarding access to public government data. In part, subdivision 2 states, The responsible authority...shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. (Emphasis added.)

    Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, states, in part, the responsible authority shall establish procedures to describe how [access to public data] may be gained. The procedures established shall be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03....In such procedures, the responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a reasonable time. (Emphasis added.)

    Further, subdivision 3 of Section 13.03 states, in part:

    If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based.

    In summary, these provisions require government entities to maintain data in a manner such that requests for access to public government data may be responded to appropriately and promptly. If the government entity determines that the classification of the data is something other than public, the government entity must so notify the requestor, either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon thereafter as possible.

    The question at hand is whether the MDNR responded to Mr. Meier's request as required by Chapter 13 and its implementing rules. Specifically, did the MDNR provide a response to Mr. Meier's request in a prompt manner and within a reasonable time? In Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinion Number 96-003, the Commissioner wrote:

    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. According to the plain words of the statute, when read in light of the dictionary definitions, a response to a request for data, delivered six weeks later, cannot be considered prompt.

    Further, the Commissioner wrote:

    As defined in The American Heritage Dictionary, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, reasonable means within the bounds of common sense; not excessive or extreme; fair. Again, a response six weeks later, in a case in which the data requested were clearly identified, cannot be construed to be either prompt or reasonable.

    In Advisory Opinion Number 96-003, at least six weeks passed before the data requestor received any kind of a response from the government entity. As the Commissioner stated, such a response time is neither prompt nor reasonable, especially when the data requested were not a point of confusion.

    In the present situation, it took the MDNR approximately thirteen weeks to respond to Mr. Meier's request. The MDNR clearly did not respond to Mr. Meier within the time requirements of Chapter 13.

    In addition, if some of the data contained in the requested report are not available to Mr. Meier because those data are not public, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, Mr. Meier should have been so advised either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible.

    Opinion:


    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Meier is as follows:

    Given that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) took at least thirteen weeks to respond to Mr. Meier's request for access to government data, the MDNR did not respond within the time frame required by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.


    Signed:

    Elaine S. Hansen
    Commissioner

    Dated: January 30, 1996


    Inspection

    Response to data requests

    Statutory construction (Ch. 645)

    Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)

    Definition of prompt or reasonable time

    Words and phrases construed (645.08)

    back to top