April 29, 1998; School District 196 (Rosemount)
4/29/1998 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 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 PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On March 2, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. G. In their letter, Mr. and Mrs. G asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding their rights to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District (ISD) #196, Rosemount. Mr. and Mrs. G enclosed copies of related correspondence. In response to the G's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to John T. Haro, Superintendent of ISD #196. The purposes of this letter, dated March 5, 1998, were to inform Dr. Haro of Mr. and Mrs. G's request, and to ask him or the District's attorney to provide information or support for its position. On March 23, 1998, PIPA received a response from Mark T. Porter, Director of Human Resources and Legal Services for the District. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. In a letter dated January 20, 1998, the G's requested, among other things, the following data: [t]he total number of A, B, C, D, F and incomplete letter grades given out in each of the American History classes which Ms. Henderson taught first trimester. In a letter dated February 1, 1998, the G's requested copies of audiotapes of a meeting with ISD #196 personnel that took place January 16, 1998. In a letter dated February 6, 1998, ISD #196 responded to the G's first request with the following: Please be advised that the final grading structure for Ms. Henderson's American History Classes is as follows:
Grade Number of Students
A 12
B 32
C 19
D 13
F 18
I 0
Total = 94
A total of one hour was spent aggregating this data. The fee for preparing this data is one hour at $17.95 per hour, or $17.95. In their opinion request, the G's wrote: . . . we feel we did not receive the data in the way we had requested it. We had asked for this data to be provided for EACH of the three classes, not all lumped together as we received it. (Emphasis theirs.) In a letter dated February 6, 1998, ISD #196 responded to the G's request for copies of the audiotapes as follows: [t]he dubbing time for these tapes is a total of two (2) hours and 10 minutes. The charges for this service are two (2) hours at $17.95 per hour, or $35.90. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Porter wrote, in regard to the G's first request, . . . it appears that the District believed they were being responsive to the request for the total number of letter grades. I am not aware of whether there was any subsequent communication between the [G's] and the District concerning clarification of the fact that the request was intended to illicit [sic] a response for each class. I am not aware of any subsequent clarification. Now that the District is fully apprised of the scope and nature of the request, the summary data requested can and will be provided at no additional cost. In regard to the cost of the copies, Mr. Porter wrote that the District believes its charges are allowable pursuant to Minnesota Rules Parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0700. According to Mr. Porter, the data requested by the G's did not exist in the form requested but the District recognized the request as a legitimate request for summary data' and responded accordingly. Mr. Porter wrote that the only copy costs the District sought to recover were the cost of labor associated with the preparation of the data, even though the Rule allows for the recovery of other costs. Mr. Porter stated: [t]he District believes that the two hour charge for the copying of two cassette tapes, and the one hour charge for the compilation of grade data were reasonable and in accordance with Minnesota Rules 1205.0300 and 1205.0700. Issues:In their request for an opinion, Mr. and Mrs. G asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
Discussion:According to Mr. Porter, the District did not interpret the G's request for access to summary data as they had intended. That is, they wanted the breakdown of letter grades for each class, whereas the District provided the grades in aggregate. The District has the responsibility to make sure that it receives sufficient information to respond appropriately to requests for access to data. In this case, it appears the District made a reasonable, response to the G's request. Once it learned of a misunderstanding, the District said it would make the data the G's seek available to them at no additional cost. The Commissioner believes that is an appropriate response. Mr. and Mrs. G requested two types of data: a compilation of grades; and a copy of audiotapes of meetings with District personnel about their child. Statute provides different standards for determining appropriate fees for the provision of these types of data. The compilation of grades, for purposes of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, is summary data, i.e., data derived from private or confidential data from which personal identifiers have been removed. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 19, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0200, subpart 16.) Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 7, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0700, subpart 7, and Part 1205.0300, subpart 4, the District may recover the cost it incurred to produce summary data. The District may include the cost of materials, labor and any special costs associated with machine-based records. According to Mr. Porter, the District included only the cost of labor in its charge. However, Mr. Porter did not provide the Commissioner with any documentation to support the charge of $17.95 for one hour of labor. Assuming it took one hour to produce the summary data, and the salary of the person who produced it is $17.95 per hour, then the District's charge is allowable. The audiotapes of a meeting to discuss the G's child contain private data about the G's. (See Section 13.32.) Section 13.04 governs access to data by a data subject. Pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District may charge the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling copies of the audiotapes. According to Mr. Porter, it took a District employee two hours to copy two audiotapes. Again, Mr. Porter provided no documentation to support that claim. The District may charge a data subject the actual cost of the copies, and, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 5, the fee must be reasonable. The District has not demonstrated that its copy charge is allowable pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. and Mrs. G is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: April 29, 1998 |
Educational data
Summary data
Grade book or testing data
Summary data
Costs
