May 31, 2002; Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning
5/31/2002 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:On April 29, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated April 27, 2002, from Kevin Pachl. In his letter Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the fee he was charged for copies of data that he requested from the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning (CFL). IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christine Jax, Commissioner of CFL, in response to Mr. Pachl's request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 2, 2002, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl's request and to ask her to provide information or support for CFL's position. On May 17, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Tammy Pust, Assistant Commissioner for CFL. A summary of the facts is as follows. On March 28, 2002, Mr. Pachl requested the following data from CFL, Photocopies of the log (with any identifying data redacted) that is kept when a Hearing Officer is appointed for a due process hearing for all school districts in the state. Ms. Pust stated that CFL staff telephoned Mr. Pachl to clarify the period of time for which he wanted the logs. (Apparently, he wanted them for calendar years 2000 and 2001.) On April 2, 2002, CFL sent a redacted copy of the hearing logs for the year 2001. In the accompanying letter, staff wrote, Please note that these logs are not always accurate due to the antiquated software they run on and data entry errors. Thus, when CFL uses these logs they are often crosschecked with the actual case files. On April 12, 2002, CFL sent a redacted copy of the hearing logs for the year 2000. In the accompanying letter, staff wrote, The hearing logs provided are maintained for internal use. Because errors occur during data input on the logs we felt it important to advise you of that fact. We crosscheck and update our data logs periodically when necessary. We will not do so for this request. Staff also informed Mr. Pachl that the charge for data thus far provided is $39.95. In his opinion request, Mr. Pachl wrote, I do not believe I should have to pay for inaccurate data. What would be the purpose of having [Chapter 13] if institutions provide 'inaccurate' data and are able to charge for that data? Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual makes a request for access to public data of which s/he is not the subject, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate manner. The issue in this opinion is not whether CFL's response was timely or whether the copying fee was allowable. Rather, the issue Mr. Pachl raised is whether he should be required to pay for copies of data that are not necessarily accurate, i.e., updated or double-checked for accuracy. In her response, Ms. Pust described the hearing logs: ...When there are disputes over special education services in schools, parents or school districts have the right to request an impartial due process hearing....CFL receives these requests for a hearing, assigns a case number, and inputs various information into a computer database established for each request. This computer database is called the hearing log. The hearing log is similar to a court docket sheet - it identifies the names, addresses and phone numbers of the parties, attorneys and hearing officers.... The purpose of the hearing log is for CFL's internal purpose to quickly reference certain information for each hearing. CFL staff use this log to locate the case file number to find the hearing file. CFL staff also use the log to quickly locate names or numbers of key personnel of the hearing or to check dates. In the past, CFL used the database to generate boilerplate letters to the addresses in the hearing log, however, due to poor performance of the database software, CFL no longer uses it for that purpose. All the information listed in the log is also in the hearing file. Indeed, the hearing file or the hearing officer's decision will contain the more accurate information. Because of the limited purpose of the hearing logs, they are not always updated or double-checked for accuracy since the original information is in the file. In previous requests, Mr. Pachl has requested to see numerous due process hearing decisions, which are also on the CFL Public Web page. Ms. Pust further wrote, Mr. Pachl was provided an accurate copy of the documents that he requested....He...objects to paying for copies of documents that might contain errors. She noted that section 13.05, subdivision 5, requires a government entity to establish procedures to ensure that all data on individuals are accurate, complete, and current for the purposes for which they were collected. Ms. Pust argued: ...the purpose for the logs is for CFL staff's internal need for a quick reference to certain information regarding a hearing request. The more updated and accurate information will be contained in the hearing files...Accordingly, due to the limited purpose of the logs and the availability of the same information from the other public sources, the logs are reasonably accurate and complete for the purposes for which they were collected. Finally, Ms. Pust stated: In sum, a state agency is not prohibited by [Chapter 13] for charging for copies of documents that might contain errors in the information contained therein. Mr. Pachl received an accurate copy of the public documents he requested. CFL is authorized to charge him for the copies of the documents in accordance with [Chapter 13] and the CFL copy procedures. The Commissioner has the following comments. As stated above, section 13.03, subdivision 2, requires government entities to respond to data requests in an appropriate manner. In addition, it is important that government entities maintain data that are as accurate, complete, and current as possible under the circumstances, for the purposes for which such data are collected and maintained. (See section 13.05, subdivision 5.) Here, it seems that the most appropriate response would have been for CFL, upon receiving Mr. Pachl's request, to inform him that the data he requested are not necessarily accurate, and that the most accurate/updated data are located in the actual hearing files. If this had occurred, Mr. Pachl then could have made an informed decision as to whether he wished to obtain copies of the logs, inspect the logs, or withdraw his request. It appears, however, that the first notice Mr. Pachl had of the status of the data was when CFL sent him the first batch of copies on April 2, 2002. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Pachl raised is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: May 31, 2002 |
Data subjects
Response to data requests
Complete and current 13.05
Inappropriate response, generally
