To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
June 1, 2000; Minnesota Department of Transportation
6/1/2000 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 29, 2000, IPA received a letter dated March 29, 2000, from Laura and John Reinhardt. In their letter, the Reinhardts discussed their attempts to gain access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) maintains. IPA staff requested that the Reinhardts clarify their request for assistance. They did so by asking for an advisory opinion in a letter dated April 4, 2000. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Elwyn Tinklenberg, Commissioner of MnDOT in response to the Reinhardts' request. This letter, dated April 10, 2000, served to inform him of the Reinhardts' request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department's position. On May 1, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Commissioner Tinklenberg. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated January 14, 2000, the Reinhardts requested access to the following data: 1. MnDOT's Draft Record of Decision which was submitted to the FTA on November 16, 1999. 2. We have reviewed the 1985 EIS and the 1993 EA concerning the project, but are unable to locate any reference to an operating plan that would allow Light Rail Transit to preempt all traffic signals at cross streets outside of Downtown Minneapolis. We wish to review all documents which address the specifics of such an operating plan, including, but not limited to, the following: a. A discussion of the social, environmental and economic impacts to the neighborhoods along the Corridor which will be subject to traffic preemption, including:
(i) degradation to the street traffic system;
b. A discussion of plans to mitigate the negative impacts to such neighborhoods. c. A cost analysis for planned mitigation measures. d. A discussion of plans to achieve safe preempt service. 3. Documents which illustrate public participation concerning the issue of traffic preemption, including documents provided to citizens which explain the concept of traffic preemption and its potential impacts to neighborhood residents. 4. Documents which memorialize the decision to operate LRT with traffic preemption in the Corridor: a. Who were the decision makers? b. On what date was such decision made? c. Upon what criteria did the decision makers rely to reach such decision? 5. All documents concerning the consideration and comparison of an operating plan which does not include preemption of traffic at cross streets (i.e., which causes LRVs to stop and go with traffic on Hiawatha Avenue). 6. All comments (oral, written or transcribed) received from the public at the 9-16-99 Minneapolis public hearing and MnDOT's (or any other agency's) responses to same. MnDOT sent a letter dated February 29, 2000, to the Reinhardts. Staff of the MnDOT Metro Rail Office wrote: Commissioner Tinklenberg asked us to respond to your letter of January 14. As a result of our response to that letter you visited our office on February 10, 2000. The material you reviewed that day was the extent of the information available at that time on the topics you raised. We need to apologize for not having the public hearing responses ready when you came to MnDOT's Metro Office. Since then, we have completed writing responses to the comments and testimony received at the three public hearings regarding the Preliminary Design Plans. Those comments and testimony, and our responses, are available at the following four locations... MnDOT staff then commented on the Reinhardts' telephone inquiry regarding pre-emption. Finally, staff wrote, The rest of what you have requested does not exist. It is either a level of detail that we do not have the resources to produce or it is information that will be provided in the final design phase. The Reinhardts then requested an advisory opinion. Issue:In their request for an opinion, the Reinhardts asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, individuals have the right to gain access, i.e., inspect or obtain copies, to public government data. Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.03, a government entity must respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Further, Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, requires that the entity respond within a reasonable time. In their March 27, 2000, letter to the Commissioner of Administration, the Reinhardts wrote, ....In response to [the January 14, 2000] request, we were invited to MnDot's offices on February 10th to review documents. However, we spent less than ten minutes in MnDot's offices because the documents which were offered for our review were not, in fact, responsive to our written request. We continued to press MnDot for the documents, and received a letter from [MnDot staff]. [MnDot staff] claims that MnDot has no further documents to disclose.... We were able to obtain a copy of the Draft Record of Decision (Request No. 1 in our 1-14-00 letter) from another source. Request Nos. 2 through 5 all relate to the pre-empt operating plan, and no responsive documents have been produced. MnDot replied to Request No. 6 by directing us to review its responses to public comment at the transportation library. We have done so. These responses are in no way complete. MnDot chose some of the citizen and neighborhood organization comments and drafted answers to the chosen comments. However, there were 200-300 citizens in attendance at the September 16, 1999 public hearing. The transcript of that hearing indicates public officials collected yellow comment cards from attendees to enable citizens to formally state their comments, questions or concerns about this project. We want to review all of the many yellow comment cards which were collected at that public hearing. We are not interested in MnDot's reinterpretation of the questions, which appears to be the format used in its responses. In his response to the Commissioner of Administration, Commissioner Tinklenberg wrote: ....MnDOT personnel responded to the January 14 inquiry with telephone and written responses. MnDOT sent the Reinhardts a number of documents, including the transcripts of public information meetings, and made available additional documents for public review. MnDOT scheduled a viewing of more voluminous documents and, on February 10, 2000, Mr. Reinhardt came to the Hiawatha Project Office to review documents assembled by MnDOT....The Reinhardts believe that additional documents exist at MnDOT... Commissioner Tinklenberg specifically mentioned MnDOT's February 29, 2000, letter to the Reinhardts. He wrote, The letter goes on to identify four document depositories where data is available for public review, as well as an explanation of the preemption issues raised in his request. More importantly, this letter clearly sets out that the rest of what you have requested does not exist.' Commissioner Tinklenberg further stated: ...the documents requested seem to be the kind that would be public and made available, but only to the extent that the documents exist. I have been assured by MnDOT personnel at the Hiawatha Project Office that documents responsive to the Reinhardts' requests have either been previously mailed to them, made available for review at MnDOT offices or simply do not exist. As stated above, section 13.03 requires that government entities respond to requests for access to public data. In the case of this opinion, there appears to be a dispute regarding whether MnDOT has provided all data responsive to the Reinhardts' request. The Reinhardts assert that MnDOT is refusing to provide some of the data they requested. Conversely, Commissioner Tinklenberg states that MnDOT advised the Reinhardts about four locations where data are available for public review and also informed the Reinhardts that the remainder of the data do not exist. Although the Commissioner of Administration is not in a position to determine which data do or do not exist, he would like to offer the following comments regarding MnDOT's response. First, pursuant to section 13.03, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data. In their January 14, 2000, letter, the Reinhardts requested access to various specific types of information. MnDOT's February 29, 2000, response was incomplete; staff provided a list of document depositories where data is available for public review and also stated that the remaining requested data do not exist. However, MnDOT staff were obligated by law to examine the Reinhardts entire request, and to determine, item by item, which data it maintains and which data do not exist. If MnDOT maintains any of the public data, it should make those data available to the Reinhardts. If some of the requested data do not exist, MnDOT should so inform the Reinhardts. Furthermore, some additional language MnDOT included in its February 29, 2000, response regarding the remaining data seems ambiguous. Staff wrote, [the remaining data] is either at a level of detail that we do not have the resources to produce or it is information that will be provided in the final design phase. It is not clear if MnDOT is asserting that some of the data exist, but not in the requested format, or possibly that the data exist but will not be made available until the final design phase of the project is reached, or that the data will come into existence only when the final design phase is reached. If the data do not exist, MnDOT is not obligated to create them and should so inform the Reinhardts. However, if the data do exist, MnDOT is obligated to provide those data to the Reinhardts. Finally, in their opinion request, the Reinhardts indicated they did not get access to all the written comments from the 9-16-99 public hearing. The Reinhardts stated that when they visited the transportation library to inspect all comments...received from the public at the 9-16-99 Minneapolis public hearing and MnDot's...responses to same, MnDOT had chosen some of the comments and drafted answers to the chosen comments. The Reinhardts wrote, We want to review all of the many yellow comment cards which were collected at that public hearing. We are not interested in MnDot's reinterpretation of the questions... The Reinhardts requested access to all comments received. If MnDOT's response was an interpretation or summary of those comments, and not the comments themselves, MnDOT has not made a complete response and should make the yellow comment cards available to the Reinhardts. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that the Reinhardts raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: June 1, 2000 |
Copy costs
Existence of data
Response to data requests
Requestor must be informed
