Facts and Procedural History:

On May 6, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In his letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE.) (The 2003 Minnesota Legislature changed the name of the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning to the Department of Education. See Minnesota Laws 2003, First Special Session, Chapter 9.) Mr. Pachl enclosed copies of his correspondence with MDE.

In response to Mr. Pachl's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Cheri Pierson Yecke, Commissioner of MDE. The purposes of this letter, dated May 7, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Department's position. On May 29, 2003, IPAD received a response from Chas Anderson, Assistant Commissioner for MDE. Ms. Anderson provided the Commissioner with copies of additional correspondence between MDE and Mr. Pachl. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.

In a letter to MDE dated February 12, 2003, Mr. Pachl requested copies of the following data: [a]ll correspondence and documentation of all phone calls to and from Anoka-Hennepin ISD 11 regarding any special education issue/questions for the last two years, which involved any/all, [MDE] staff member/s. I do not need any copies of any special education complaints that you have previously sent me.

An exchange of letters followed, as MDE informed Mr. Pachl of its efforts to fulfill his request. This discussion focuses on correspondence relevant to Mr. Pachl's request for copies of correspondence. MDE eventually provided Mr. Pachl with the documentation he requested concerning telephone calls.

In a letter dated March 12, 2003, MDE wrote to Mr. Pachl: [p]lease provide written clarification to the Department as far as your request for correspondence. The Department has processed numerous requests for data from you over the last two years and it is not clear what information you are seeking at this time. Mr. Pachl responded to this request in a letter to MDE dated March 31, 2003: I am requesting all correspondence between [MDE] and Anoka Hennepin ISD 11 regarding special education.

Letters from MDE to Mr. Pachl, dated March 12, 14 and 21, 2003, contain the following statement or similar language:

Per your request, please find enclosed the following:

Copies of some of the documentation of telephone calls to and from Anoka Hennepin ISD 11 regarding any special education issue/questions for the last two years, which involved any/all, [MDE] staff members. The Department is continuing to work on this request and will send you additional data, as we are able to compile it.

In an April 8, 2003, letter to Mr. Pachl, MDE wrote:

On March 14, 2003, you were sent copies of documentation requested. The letter accompanying the information indicated that the Department was continuing to work on the request and would send you additional data as we compile it.

I apologize for any confusion the March 14 letter may have caused, which seems to indicate there would be additional information provided. The purpose of that letter was to indicate that all documentation that was available was being sent to you under the cover of the March 14 letter, but that the Department would continue to check to see if any further documentation was available. After completely reviewing our records, we find that all documentation we have available regarding your request has been provided to you and your request is fulfilled.

According to Mr. Pachl, as of the date of his opinion request, I have not received any data regarding correspondence to and from ISD 11 regarding special education issues.

In his comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Anderson [a]fter reviewing the communications and documents in this matter, it appears that a portion of Mr. Pachl's Data Practices request was overlooked by MDE staff. MDE staff has now compiled the documents as Mr. Pachl requested.

Ms. Anderson further commented:

Mr. Pachl never responded to MDE about the April 8, 2003 letter advising him that MDE staff had understood that they fulfilled all of Mr. Pachl's February 12, 2003 Data Practices request. ...

Upon receipt of the Administration opinion request, MDE staff checked the records and reviewed the matter. As indicated in the April 8, 2003 letter to Mr. Pachl, MDE staff thought all of his requests had been completed. Upon review of this matter, it appears that Mr. Pachl's broad request for 'all correspondence' was overlooked in MDE'S staff's extensive efforts to comply with his broad request for 'documentation of all phone calls.'

Issue:

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

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) respond appropriately to a February 12, 2003, request for copies of all correspondence for the last two years between Independent School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin) and MDE regarding any special education issue or question?

---

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests access to public government data, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time.

MDE did not provide some of the data Mr. Pachl requested on February 12, 2003, until after it received notice of his opinion request. The Department sought clarification about the correspondence Mr. Pachl was requesting, but did not acknowledge receiving that clarification. Given that the Department did respond to part of the request, i.e., the telephone call documentation, and thought it had communicated to Mr. Pachl that it believed his request was fulfilled, the kind of oversight that occurred here is understandable. The Commissioner concludes that MDE did not respond fully to Mr. Pachl's request, but acknowledges that the Department did exert considerable effort in an attempt to make a full response. Nonetheless, MDE has an obligation to respond promptly and reasonably to all requests for access to public government data.

---

Opinion:

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

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) did not respond appropriately to a February 12, 2003, request for copies of all correspondence for the last two years between Independent School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin) and MDE regarding any special education issue or question.

Signed:

Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner

Dated: June 3, 2003

---