To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
April 17, 2002; School District 276 (Minnetonka)
4/17/2002 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 March 26, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated March 25, 2002, from Ryan Nelson. In his letter, Mr. Nelson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that School District 276, Minnetonka, maintains. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Peterson, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Nelson's request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 26, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Nelson's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On April 11, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated April 10, 2002, from Mark Wolak, Assistant Superintendent for Administration and Accountability. A summary of the facts as Mr. Nelson provided them is as follows. On January 24, 2002, Mr. Nelson asked to review all public data about a particular staff person in the District. On February 11, 2002, the District provided certain data to Mr. Nelson. In its response to Mr. Nelson, the District also stated, in regard to other types of public personnel data, that those data were not applicable. In his opinion request, Mr. Nelson wrote, This term [not applicable] has many meanings.... It is due to this lack of clarity that I am submitting this request. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nelson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), when an individual makes a request for access to data and the government entity denies access, the entity is required to cite the specific statutory section upon which it based its determination. Further, as the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, if particular requested data do not exist, the entity should so inform the requestor. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Wolak explained that on March 26, 2002, Mr. Nelson wrote to him (Mr. Wolak) and asked for clarification regarding the term not applicable. Mr. Wolak wrote back to Mr. Nelson on April 2, 2002, and stated, in part, The term 'not applicable,' for our use, means 'none.' Also in his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Wolak wrote, In the future, similar responses from our office will use the term 'none' when we are responding to requests for public information from a personnel file and no public information exists. The Commissioner is encouraged by the District's decision. The language in section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), exists so that an entity provides a data requestor with as much information as possible about why certain data may not be accessible. The data requestor then can determine if s/he has a basis upon which to contest the entity's determination. As Mr. Nelson stated in his opinion request, the term not applicable has many meanings. The District needed to provide clarification, which it did, and to use a different term to explain why Mr. Nelson could not gain access to the data. Finally, although using the word none suggests that no data exist, it would be clearer to the public if the District simply were to say it maintains no data of that particular type or it maintains no data responsive to the request. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue Mr. Nelson raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: April 17, 2002 |
