Opinion Library

To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

RSS feed

Advisory Opinion 97-041

October 3, 1997; University of Minnesota

10/3/1997 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 PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.

On August 11, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated August 4, 1997, from James Paddock. In his letter, Mr. Paddock requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the University of Minnesota.

PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University, in response to Mr. Paddock's request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 11, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Paddock's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University's position. On August 25, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated August 21, 1997, from Ms. Smith.

A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated May 27, 1997, Mr. Paddock requested access to the following data from the University: All existing data pertaining to the WCHA [Western Collegiate Hockey Association] Audit. This is property of the University of Minnesota, which makes it available to the public.

In a letter dated July 2, 1997, on behalf of the University, Judith Karon responded to Mr. Paddock's request. She wrote, I have reviewed item 3 where you asked for all the existing data pertaining to the WCHA Audit.' This document, should it exist, would not be the property of the University of Minnesota. I suggest you contact the WCHA directly for information regarding this matter.

Mr. Paddock then requested an advisory opinion.

Issue:

In his request for an opinion, Mr. Paddock asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, has the University of Minnesota responded to the following request for government data made in a letter dated May 27, 1997: all existing data pertaining to the WCHA Audit?

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3, upon request, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy government data at reasonable times and places. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, the government entity is required to respond, respectively, in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. In addition, if the data are classified so as to preclude the requesting party from gaining access, the government entity is required to so inform the requestor.

In her response to Mr. Paddock's opinion request, Ms. Smith wrote:

The University of Minnesota at Duluth fully responded to Mr. Paddock's request on July 2, 1997. If the WCHA has an audit report, it is not government data under Minn. Stat. section 13.02, subd. 7 (1996). The University does not have and has never had such a report. The WCHA is not part of the University, the University did not see or participate in such an audit, and the University did not own any WCHA records that were audited. Contrary to Mr. Paddock's belief, the WCHA audit, if there is such a document, is not property of the Main University,' and the University does not have a copy of it.

Under Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subd. 3, the requested data was not classified so as to deny the requesting person access,' and the University did not deny' access to the data. The University therefore had no further obligation under [Chapter 13].

Ms. Smith argued that the University fully responded. While it is correct that the University did send a response to Mr. Paddock, the Commissioner opines that, for two reasons, the response is problematic. First, Ms. Karon's response did not clearly address the request made by Mr. Paddock. He requested access to data pertaining to the WCHA Audit. Ms. Karon replied, This document, should it exist, would not be the property of the University of Minnesota. However, Mr. Paddock did not ask for a copy of the audit; he asked for access to data pertaining to the audit and Ms. Karon was obligated under Chapter 13 to respond to his actual request. Either those data are government data (see Section 13.02, subdivision 7) or they are not.

Second, the University did not respond to the request in a timely manner, i.e., the University took over four weeks to respond. As stated above, Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, require that government entities respond promptly and within a reasonable time. The University did not provide any argument as to why a response time of over four weeks was prompt and reasonable.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Paddock is as follows:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, the University did not respond to a May 27, 1997, request for access to data in a prompt manner or within a reasonable time. In addition, the University did not respond to the actual request made by the requestor.

Signed:

Elaine S. Hansen
Commissioner

Dated: October 3, 1997