May 23, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)
5/23/2001 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 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 April 3, 2001, IPA received a letter from Tammy Emery. In this letter, Ms. Emery asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin. In response to Ms. Emery's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated April 5, 2001, were to inform him of Ms. Emery's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On April 13, 2001, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. After inspecting public personnel data maintained by the District, Ms. Emery requested copies of some of the data. Ms. Emery stated to the Commissioner: I was given 3 totally blank copies of application forms . . . . I mentioned to [District staff] while I was there, that I did not want these and did not request these 3 copies. She refused to remove them from the total charges. I was forced to take them if I wanted all of the other data I requested. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated: Please be advised that the District provided and charged Ms. Emery for copies of data she requested. At no time did the District charge Ms. Emery for copies she had not requested. . . . It is my understanding that while Ms. Emery questioned [District staff] about one of the three pages in question, she never indicated that she did not want the copy. It should be noted that the three pages in dispute are individual pages that were part of personnel applications Ms. Emery was inspecting. Had Ms. Emery made her request clear, she would not have been provided or charged for those pages. Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. Emery asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(c), a government entity may charge its actual cost to provide copies of public government data. Ms. Emery and the District do not agree upon the details of her data request. Ms. Emery says she did not request copies of the three application form pages for which the District required payment. She said she disputed the charge at the time she received the copies. Mr. Cady said that the District asked Ms. Emery to pay only for copies she requested. From the copies provided to the Commissioner, it appears that the three pages of the application forms do not contain any personnel data, i.e., data on individuals. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5, and section 13.43, subdivision 1.) They are pages of the District's application form that have not been filled in. If Ms. Emery asked for copies of public personnel data about three District employees, then the District may not charge Ms. Emery for copies of pages that do not contain any of the government data, i.e., personnel data, she requested. However, if, after inspecting data, Ms. Emery asked for copies of the three application forms, then the District may charge her for the blank pages, i.e., those containing no personnel data. She may not have wanted those pages once she realized they contained no personnel data, but if she asked for copies, she is obliged to pay for them. However, given that Ms. Emery challenged their inclusion upon receipt, the District could have saved itself considerable time and expense had it simply removed the charge for those three pages at that time. Mr. Cady stated [h]ad Ms. Emery made her request clear, she would not have been provided or charged for those pages. However, as the Commissioner has stated numerous times in previous opinions, if a government entity is not clear about what data are requested, it is incumbent upon it to clarify the request. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Emery is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: May 23, 2001 |
