Facts and Procedural History:

On December 29, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated December 27, 2005, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD).

IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nick Drees, Administrator of MSTRWD, in response to Mr. Stengrim's request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 30, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Stengrim's request and to ask him to provide information or support for MSTRWD's position. On January 11, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Jeffrey Hane, an attorney representing MSTRWD.

A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated November 10, 2005, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Mr. Drees and asked to inspect the following data:

1. All data concerning requests for funds from the Red River Watershed Management Board for the Agassiz Valley Project.
2. All financial data showing all funds received from the Red River Watershed Management Board for the Agassiz Valley Project.
3. All data related to the spending of funds received from the Agassiz Valley Project.

In a letter dated November 23, 2005, Mr. Drees responded: I have received your data request and I am looking for information on the Agassiz Valley Project.

On December 15, 2005, Mr. Drees wrote a second letter to Mr. Stengrim. Mr. Drees stated: In reviewing your request ... it appears this request is similar to a request that you previously made. Much of this data you appear to be asking for was made available to you. Are you asking for an update of this data? Would you be more specific on your request. Mr. Hane wrote that Mr. Stengrim did not respond.

Issue:

Has the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a November 10, 2005, request for data?

---

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)

Further, previously issued advisory opinions have discussed that when responding to data requests, government entities should provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requesting person access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.

In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Hane wrote that after Mr. Drees wrote to Mr. Stengrim on November 23, 2005, it appeared to Mr. Drees that most of the materials had already been provided to Mr. Stengrim.

Mr. Hane cited six previous instances in which Mr. Stengrim has made requests for data relating to the Agassiz Project. Mr. Hane stated:

Mr. Stengrim's requests are so broad that they are nearly impossible for the Watershed to satisfy with any certainty....

The majority of the requests include the phrases any data or all data. The frustration of the Watershed is that the requests put the Watershed in the position of having to try and discern what materials are included in the various requests and then place the burden on the Watershed to dig through all available files and sort through to find every single item that might be responsive to these requests.

Of Mr. Stengrim's November 10, 2005, request, Mr. Hane wrote:

Mr. Stengrim's request does not narrow the data he seeks at all in terms of chronology. It appears he is asking Mr. Drees to produce for Stengrim's inspection any data, written or electronic, that pertains whatsoever to any funds from the Red Board that had ever been requested, received or spent on the Agassiz project. In theory, Mr. Stengrim's letter asks to review every single receipt, cancelled check, letter, financial print-out, etc. that has anything to do with the Agassiz Valley Project....

It should be apparent why Mr. Drees asked Mr. Stengrim to clarify the scope of his request given the volumes of data previously provided to him.

The Commissioner has the following comments. One of a government entity's responsibilities under Chapter 13 is to locate and provide data, in a reasonable amount of time, in response to data practices requests. To better comply with this requirement, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that entities shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Further, when an individual wants to gain access to data about a certain issue but doesn't know specifically what kinds of data the entity maintains related to that issue, it is reasonable for the individual to make a request for all/any data relating to the specific issue.

With respect to Mr. Stengrim's November 10, 2005, request, the MSTRWD apparently sought clarification after receiving the request. Mr. Hane states Mr. Stengrim did not respond. Given the number and substance of Mr. Stengrim's previous data requests related to the Agassiz Project, it seems reasonable that Mr. Drees would ask for clarification. It also seems reasonable that Mr. Stengrim would provide clarification. The key, however, is that the MSTRWD needed to seek clarification soon after receiving the November 10 letter to give itself enough time to respond appropriately. (See Advisory Opinion 04-066.) The MSTRWD sought clarification approximately 35 days after receiving the request; in the Commissioner's opinion, this is not appropriate.

---

Opinion:

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

The Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in regard to a November 10, 2005, request for data.

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: February 10, 2006

---