July 30, 1997; City of Roseville
7/30/1997 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, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On June 6, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated June 5, 1997, from Al Sands. In his letter, Mr. Sands requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the City of Roseville. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Steve Sarkozy, Manager of the City of Roseville. The purposes of this letter, dated June 10, 1997, were to inform him of Mr. Sands' request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On July 17, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated same, from Mr. Sarkozy. A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated January 3, 1997, Mr. Sands requested access to certain data from the City of Roseville (see numbers 1 and 3 below). In a fax dated April 15, 1997, Mr. Sands requested access to additional data from the City of Roseville (see number 2 below). In a letter dated May 6, 1997, Mr. Sands wrote to the Mayor of Roseville and advised that he (Mr. Sands) had not yet received responses to his various requests. In a letter dated May 8, 1997, Mayor Wall responded that he had passed on Mr. Sands' letter to Steve Sarkozy for response. Then, in a letter dated May 15, 1997, Mr. Sands wrote to Mr. Sarkozy and again requested the items listed as numbers 1, 2, and 3 below. He also requested two additional pieces of information. On June 26, 1997, Mr. Sarkozy sent to PIPA a copy of a letter, also dated June 26, 1997, addressed to Mr. Sands. In that letter, Mr. Sarkozy apologized for the delay in responding and updated Mr. Sands on his request. His responded to each of Mr. Sands' requests:
On June 27, 1997, PIPA staff contacted Mr. Sands to see if he wished to proceed with the opinion. He advised that he did wish to continue and also allowed that he had received, on June 25, 1997, the City's annual report and audit (request number 5). PIPA staff then contacted Mr. Sarkozy and advised him that the Commissioner would be issuing an opinion on the matter raised by Mr. Sands. On July 17, 1997, PIPA received a response from Mr. Sarkozy.
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Sands asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, a government entity must respond to a request for access to government data in an appropriate and prompt manner. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, the responsible authority must respond within a reasonable time.
Mr. Sands made requests for various types of data from the City of Roseville. Based on Mr. Sarkozy's response, it appears that some of the data, specifically those items labeled in this opinion as numbers 1, 3, and 5, involve works in progress as part of the annual audit and report. Mr. Sarkozy wrote:
Mr. Sarkozy further explained that the City had recently adopted a revised Tax Increment Policy. He wrote, This new policy is again contained in our Annual Budget and calls for specific reporting data to be included in the budget and Annual Report. Much of the data that Mr. Sands requests is that summary data that is now as a [sic] compiled and formatted standard City report. Mr. Sarkozy further wrote, In short, I believe that the information that Mr. Sands requests is now being provided on a routine basis, and if made available to Mr. Sands when requested, would involve extensive extraordinary work by staff (prior to the preparation of the budget and Annual Report and audit.) As stated above, Chapter 13 requires that a government entity respond to requests for access to public data within a reasonable time. If the requested data do not exist, however, there is no requirement that the government entity create new data or create data in a particular format specified by the requestor. It appears Mr. Sarkozy is stating that the data requested by Mr. Sands as numbers 1, 3, and 5, did not initially exist in the format requested by Mr. Sands. However, if the data either did not initially exist or had not yet been created in the format requested by Mr. Sands, the City is still under an obligation to respond to Mr. Sands' requests; the response could have been that the data do not exist or that the City is in the process of preparing the data in the format requested. Whether or not the City did respond to Mr. Sands' original requests is under dispute. In his opinion request, Mr. Sands wrote that his requests for information have gone ignored, without any explanation whatsoever. Mr. Sarkozy wrote that he understood the City's Finance Director had informed Mr. Sands, on a number of occasions that the Annual Report would be available in late June. However, Mr. Sarkozy did not provide any documentation to support his assertion. Thus, regarding Mr. Sands' requests labeled as numbers 1, 3, and 5, if the City did not inform Mr. Sands that the data did not exist in the format in which he had requested, the City did not, pursuant to Chapter 13, respond properly to the requests. But, if the City did inform Mr. Sands that the data would be forthcoming in the format in which he had requested, the City's response was in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 13. In addition, as soon as the data came into existence, i.e., were formatted and/or created, those data should promptly have been made available to Mr. Sands, regardless of whether the actual report was ready to be released. As a final point, there is nothing in Chapter 13 prohibiting the City and Mr. Sands from negotiating an agreement in which the City would format the data as desired by Mr. Sands. In such an instance, depending on the agreement, Mr. Sands might be required to pay the City for its time. Regarding the data requested in numbers 2 and 4, it does not appear that those data were being prepared and formatted as part of an annual report and audit. The data referred to as request number 2 were originally requested in a fax dated April 15, 1997, and the data referred to as request number 4 were originally requested in a letter dated May 15, 1997. It appears Mr. Sands did not receive a response from the City to either of these two requests until sometime around June 26, 1997. In the case of both of the requests, the City has not responded in an appropriate or prompt manner. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Sands is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: July 30, 1997 |
Copy costs
Existence of data
Response to data requests
New data or different format not required
