March 22, 2001; Minnesota Department of Employee Relations
3/22/2001 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.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access. On January 30, 2001, IPA received a memo dated January 29, 2001, from Julien Carter, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER). In his memo, Commissioner Carter, on behalf of DOER and the Minnesota Departments of Human Services (DHS), Public Safety (DPS), Labor and Industry (DLI), and Children, Families and Learning (CFL), asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his and the other named agencies' obligation to respond to a particular request for data. A summary of the facts is as follows. In his memo, Commissioner Carter, wrote that an individual, Teresa Graham, had asked to inspect all public data on all past and present employees maintained by each of the above-named Departments. Commissioner Carter wrote: It is our collective belief that this is an extremely burdensome, unreasonable and capricious request, made for no other reason than to harass the agencies. The number of present employees in these departments is approximately 11,000, and past employees for whom there are existing records could potentially equal that number. The entire process of obtaining all available public data on all current and former employees for all five agencies would certainly take many months of staff time. The agencies would face the choice of paralyzing agency activities or hiring additional staff at a time of limited agency resources. The amount of paper produced would be enormous. We are asking that we not be obligated to provide this data. Any other interpretation of [Chapter 13] would lead to an absurd and unreasonable result that could not have been intended by the Legislature. Commissioner Carter added, The agencies do not believe that Ms. Graham's latest request is a valid request under [Chapter 13]. We believe that Ms. Graham does not actually want to view the data, that in fact, she is making these requests only as a means of harassing the agencies with which she perceives she has had negative experiences. According to Commissioner Carter, in November 2000, each agency received and responded to a data request from Ms. Graham. These were situations in which she requested all public data on between 28 and 78 employees. Commissioner Carter stated that in each of these cases, the agencies gathered data responsive to the request and contacted Ms. Graham to set up times to view the data. According to Commissioner Carter, In each case, Ms. Graham demanded to view the data when she knew it was not yet available, often showing up at the agencies unannounced. Once informed that the data was available, and given times to review the data, she showed no interest in reviewing the data. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Commissioner Carter asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Ms. Graham's request of each agency is to inspect all public data about current and former employees. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, states, Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places... Interpretation of this statutory language seems clear and unambiguous; when a person asks for public data, the government entity shall provide such data. There is no limitation on the volume of data that may be requested or that must be provided. However, that interpretation seems less clear when the person has a past history of making requests and then fails to view the data once they are available for inspection. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.16, states, The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Section 645.16 further provides that the words of a law must be considered in their application to an existing situation to determine if the interpretation is free from ambiguity. When applying the facts of Ms. Graham's previous interactions with the five state agencies to her most recent requests for all public data on all current and former employees, the interpretation of section 13.03 becomes ambiguous. To resolve ambiguous situations such as this, the Legislature has provided additional tools to determine underlying intent. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, provides, in pertinent part, that the Legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable. In this case, Commissioner Carter has not indicated that responding to Ms. Graham's request would be impossible to execute, although he does estimate that it would take many months and would require diverting critical staff or hiring additional staff. Thus, the next question is whether responding to Ms. Graham's request would create an absurd or unreasonable result. As per State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d 909, 916 (Minn. 1966); Knopp v. Gutterman, 102 N.W.2d 689, 695 (Minn. 1960), if the application of section 13.03 to the facts of this situation is either absurd or unreasonable, section 645.17 requires a different outcome. In reviewing Commissioner Carter's discussion of Ms. Graham's November 2000 request of each agency, her conduct suggests that she is using Chapter 13 as a tool to harass or punish each agency. First, when each agency received the request that Ms. Graham made in November of 2000, it informed her that it would take some time to compile the data. Each agency further informed her they would notify her when the data were ready for review. Regardless of this action by each agency, Ms. Graham called and demanded access to the data. Each agency reported that the telephone contacts included abusive language on Ms. Graham's part. In some cases, Ms. Graham appeared at an agency even though she had been informed that the data were not ready. According to Commissioner Carter, she was abusive to agency personnel who had contact with her. Second, when the Department of Public Safety (DPS) informed Ms. Graham that the data were ready for her to review, the location of the review was unacceptable to Ms. Graham. After a new location was found, Ms. Graham appeared to review the data. DPS had produced the data as required by Chapter 13. However, Ms. Graham was not satisfied with the manner in which the data were organized and left without reviewing anything. She has yet to review the data that DPS compiled. Third, the other agencies' compilations have not been reviewed by Ms. Graham. Each agency notified her that the data were ready for review and offered time for the review to occur. Ms. Graham has not availed herself of any of these opportunities. Fourth, the Commissioner is aware that Ms. Graham has treated School District 273, Edina, in a similar manner. She requested all public data about current and former employees. The District has asked for an advisory opinion regarding its obligation to respond to this request and has described similar treatment of its employees by Ms. Graham, along with a pattern of conduct similar to that described by the five state agencies. Further, the Commissioner is aware that Ms. Graham made the same request for public data to Intermediate School District 287. The District obtained a restraining order from Hennepin County District Court which included a provision restricting Ms. Graham from asking for and obtaining access to certain types of data. The effect of the Order is that the District does not have to respond to Ms. Graham's request for all public data about all current and former employees. See Court File No. HA 00-18020, issued February 27, 2001. Finally, Commissioner Carter noted that part of the past history between Ms. Graham and DOER, DPS, and CFL includes the fact that, in 1998, the District Court issued an Order restraining her from contacting five state agencies for two years, except in writing. Commissioner Carter wrote, The request for a restraining order stated that Ms. Graham had engaged in a 'deliberate, systematic pattern of behavior intended to adversely affect the safety, security or privacy' of various staff, and that 'her intentions are intended to harass, intimidate, scare, frighten, and destroy jobs and reputations.' The Commissioner also notes that on January 10, 2001, he informed Ms. Graham that he would not issue four opinions she had requested. He based his determination on the fact that the authority to issue advisory opinions should not be considered a vehicle to support unreasonable demands made of government entities, or to otherwise harass government employees. He also wrote, Under the circumstances, I cannot condone what appears to be an abuse of statutory process designed to assist, and not hinder, citizen access to government. It detracts from the ongoing work of the department and other government entities. Given Ms. Graham's past conduct with the five agencies, it is likely that once each agency has expended considerable time and money gathering data responsive to her request for all public data about all current and former employees, she will choose not to review the data. The Commissioner asserts that such a result is not what the Legislature intended when it enacted the public access requirements of Chapter 13. The expenditure of public resources to gather public data that the requestor will not review is an absurd and unreasonable result. As referenced above, Minnesota Statutes, section 645.17, states that when interpreting a statute, neither an absurd nor an unreasonable result is presumed. Rather a logical, practical result is preferred. State v. Murphy, 545 N.W.2d at 916 citing Industrial Rubber Applicators, Inc. v. Eaton Metal Prods. Co., 285 Minn. 511, 515, 171 N.W.2d 728, 732 (1969). Using the facts of this unique situation to interpret section 13.03, the only reasonable result is that the five state agencies are not required to provide Ms. Graham with the public data she requested. An additional note is in order. The Commissioner wishes to make clear that the conclusion he reached in this opinion is based on a unique and very specific set of facts. The outcome is in no way intended to suggest that a government entity does not have to respond to a data request merely because responding will be costly or time-consuming. However, in this particular instance, the person requesting public data has demonstrated a clear and consistent pattern of asking for large volumes of data to be prepared and then, for all practical purposes, refusing to view the data unless that inspection is provided only as she specifies. Requiring agencies to ignore that history and to prepare huge amounts of data that might never be examined not only would be an absurd result, but would make a mockery of one essential purpose of Chapter 13, which is to ensure governmental accountability. Finally, the Commissioner has the following comments for those who might argue he lacks authority to conclude that the five agencies are not required to respond to Ms. Graham's request. In 1993, the Legislature granted the Commissioner authority to issue advisory opinions regarding questions of data access, data subjects' rights, and classifications of government data. If he were powerless to remedy the abuses here, he would not be fulfilling the objectives of the legislation, but would be frustrating them. The Commissioner is not prepared to serve as an agent for Ms. Graham's abuse by perpetuating fruitless exercises in the expenditure of government resources so that she can exact revenge on entities with whom she has a variety of long-standing disuptes. This surely is not what the Legislature intended in granting the opinion authority or in granting individuals the right to gain access to government data. The Commissioner's position on this issue is similar to that taken by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, who is the person charged with ensuring compliance with freedom of information and policy laws in Ontario. See Order of the Information and Privacy Commissioner M-618, dated October 18, 1995. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Commissioner Carter raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: March 22, 2001 |
Requests for data
Commissioner of Administration
Burdensome or harassing
