June 28, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)
6/28/2001 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.
|
Note: Minnesota Statutes 13.04 subdivision 5 was repealed in 2005. 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 May 22, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin. In response to X's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated June 6, 2001, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On June 15, 2001, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a letter dated April 14, 2001, X wrote to Superintendent Giroux asking to inspect educational data about X's minor child, Y, a student in the District with a disability. The District responded that the copy charge would be $51.00. In a letter dated April 26, 2001, X wrote back to the District and asked that the copy charge be waived due to financial hardship. The District responded by stating that Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, does not contain a financial hardship provision, and by citing Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 5. The District also stated that it would continue to provide X the opportunity to inspect the data and that that right has not been impaired. X again wrote the District, in a letter dated May 12, 2001, and provided reasons for his/her assertion that the District's copy charge would impair his/her right to review the data. X stated that s/he needed the data to prepare for a Due Process Hearing that was to take place shortly, and that in order to inspect the data at the District, s/he would need to make special arrangements to take time off of work without pay, arrange and provide childcare. Besides the hardship, [Y] was recently hospitalized due to surgery and just came home yesterday. [Y] was, is, and continues to be very medical [sic] fragile. In response, in a letter dated May 18, 2001, the District reiterated that it would not waive the copy fee because Chapter 13 does not contain a financial hardship provision. The District offered to work with X to determine a date and time for your inspection that is most convenient to both parties. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady cited section 13.04, subdivision 5, and stated: At no time has the District impaired the ability of [X] to exercise his right to inspect and review records. To the contrary, the District has communicated to [X] that it has and will continue to provide [X] an opportunity to inspect and review data on dates and times that inspection is most convenient to both parties. As you are aware, [X]'s most recent data request is not isolated. [X] has inspected documents at District offices on numerous occasions. [X] has never indicated that the mutually agreeable dates and times impaired [his/her] ability to inspect data. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in general, when an individual requests copies of government data of which s/he is the subject, the entity may recover some of the associated costs of providing copies. However, section 13.04, subdivision 5, provides, in part: An agency or institution that receives a request for copies of the educational records of a child with a disability may charge a fee that reflects the costs of reproducing the records except when to do so would impair the ability of the child's parent or guardian, or the child who has reached the age of majority, to exercise their right to inspect and review those records. [Emphasis added.] Furthermore, there is a similar provision in federal law that is applicable here. According to the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 300, which governs the education of children with disabilities, parents of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to inspect and review all education records relating to their child. (See 34 C.F.R., sections 300.501 and 300.562.) According to section 300.566 (a), the District may charge a fee for copies of records that are made for parents under this part if the fee does not effectively prevent the parents from exercising their right to inspect and review those records. In light of the above-cited provision of state law, which Mr. Cady acknowledged, and the federal law governing the education of children with disabilities, the District's repeated assertions that there is no applicable financial hardship provision is puzzling. While neither state nor federal law contains the exact term financial hardship, both authorize a charge for copies only if such a charge does not impede a parent's right to inspect and review the data, as is the case with financial hardship. Furthermore, the applicable provisions of state and federal law authorize a copy charge, they don't mandate it. X asserted that given the particular circumstances surrounding his/her April 14, 2001, data request, s/he can neither pay the District's copy fees nor inspect the data during hours when the District normally operates, resulting in the impairment of his/her ability to inspect and review those data about Y. Mr. Cady stated that X had never made this assertion regarding previous requests to inspect government data maintained by the District. That is irrelevant. In his/her May 12, 2001, request for a fee waiver, X asserted that s/he needed access to the data to prepare for an upcoming Due Process Hearing about Y's education, and X's circumstances at the time precluded his/her ability either to inspect the data at the District or pay for copies. Based on the reasons X provided to the District, the District's refusal to waive the copy charge impairs or effectively prevents X's ability to exercise his/her right to inspect and review the data s/he requested about Y. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: June 28, 2001 |
Copy costs
Educational data
Copy charge is optional for entity
Special education/students with disabilities/IDEA
