January 12, 2001; School District 273 (Edina)
1/12/2001 10:16:43 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 November 17, 2000, 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 273, Edina. In response to X's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kenneth A. Dragseth, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On December 14, 2000, IPA received a response from Ann R. Goering, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. According to X, since August 1, 2000, s/he has requested access to public and private data maintained by the District. X stated: [s]ince August 1, 2000, I have been required to identify myself, state reasons for, and justify my request for public government data. X identified several District employees whom X says requested that information. X stated that in August 2000, Superintendent Dragseth, the District's responsible authority, demanded that I put my data requests in writing, which is clearly a violation of Minnesota Statute 13.05, Subdivision 12, since he required that I identify myself and provided no alternative that would not require disclosure of my identity. X stated: [o]n November 16, 2000, I again attempted to reach the responsible authority at the Edina Schools to obtain public data. I stated that I was seeking public data. Several employees again directly violated MN Statute 13.05, Subd. 12 by demanding to know who I was. Even after I declined to identify myself and cited the statute, they persisted in demanding my identity. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering stated that X has never been asked to justify [X's] reasons for requesting data. She wrote: [X] has in the past made numerous phone calls to the District. When the person s/he was calling was not available, s/he was asked to provide [her/his] name, a telephone number where s/he could return the call, and a message. This was not done with the purpose of denying [X] access to data, but to assist in responding to [X]. On the same date as [X's] letter to you requesting this opinion, in a transparent attempt to set up the District for an alleged MGDPA violation, [X] called the District demanding to speak to the Superintendent. He was not available. [X] was asked [his/her] name in order for a message to be taken. [X] refused to say who [s/he] was and continued to demand to speak to someone who was not there. It cannot reasonably be argued that a violation of the MGDPA occurs whenever a public entity asks someone's name for the purpose of taking a message. Moreover, the District may need the name of an individual in order to respond to a request for data that is not immediately accessible. The statute specifically states: A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data. Minn. Stat section 13.05 Subd. 12. Asking the name of a caller who wants to speak to an employee cannot reasonably be viewed as a violation of the MGDPA. [Emphasis provided.] Notwithstanding the provisions of the MGDPA, Independent School District 273 reserves the right to require individuals who have made hostile, demanding and repetitive calls to staff members to make future communications in writing. This is particularly true where there is a documented history of the individual mischaracterizing the content of telephone conversations and the District has the need of a record of the communication to protect it from false allegations. In the present case, the District has required [X] to communicate in writing since August due to conduct and communications unrelated to any request for government data. Therefore, the District's actions cannot reasonably be construed to be a violation of the MGDPA. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides: Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data. In this case, there is a factual dispute which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. X alleges that on several occasions, s/he was asked to identify him/herself and to justify requests for data. The District denies that assertion. According to the District, X was asked for identification in order to take a message. Neither party provided conclusive documentation to support its position. Section 13.05, subdivision 12, clearly states that government entities cannot require that individuals making requests for public data identify themselves or justify their requests, unless identifying or clarifying information is required to facilitate the response. If District employees requested identifying information and/or justification for any data requests, they are in violation of Chapter 13. If District employees did not request such information, no violation has occurred. In the past, the Commissioner has opined that government entities, as part of the policies and procedures they establish to ensure appropriate access to government data, may require the data to requestor to put the request in writing. The new provisions of section 13.05, subdivision 12, will affect such policies. Clearly government entities now may not require identification from public data requestors. However, we think it is reasonable for a government entity, as part of its data access policies and procedures, to require a written description of the data sought, without requiring the requestor to include her/his identification, reasons or justification. Requiring a written description of the data does not offend the statute, but can ensure clarification that promotes compliance with a request for public government data. In addition, a written record of data requests can reduce disagreements over compliance. The District states that, due to the nature of its past association with X, it now requires X to contact the District only in writing. On its face, that requirement appears to violate section 13.05, subdivision 12, because X would, by necessity, have to identify her/himself each time s/he contacted the District. However, given the history of its contacts with X, as described by the District, the Commissioner believes it is reasonable for the District to place that restriction upon X's contacts with the District, including X's requests for access to data. The Legislature enacted section 13.05, subdivision 12, in large part to facilitate public access to government data, by eliminating artificial barriers that discourage access. However, in situations like this one, it appears that the District is not demanding that X make his/her data requests in writing in order to discourage those requests, but rather out of concern that there be absolute clarity as to what data X is asking the District to provide, and to avoid further disagreement about how the District is required to respond. It is unfortunate, but, in our view, does not amount to an artificial barrier to access to data. Therefore, in very limited situations such as this, we believe that the District may require that X contact it only in writing. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: January 12, 2001 |
