February 2, 1994; School District 276 (Minnetonka)
2/2/1994 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.
Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation Facts and Procedural History:On January 13, 1994, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Ms. Sonja D. Kerr. Ms. Kerr is the attorney for X, a student in the Minnetonka Schools, and his parents. The facts Ms. Kerr alleged in her request were as follows.Since March, 1993, X's parents have been attempting to correct certain data in X's files. As part of that effort, they retained Ms. Kerr to represent them and X. In a letter dated November 29, 1993, Ms. Kerr wrote to a Mr. Frank Kelly who was identified to Ms. Kerr as attorney for the Minnetonka Public Schools, hereinafter Minnetonka . In that letter Ms. Kerr asked to get copies of X's school records and enclosed a signed release of information from X's mother. On December 15, 1993 copies of a number of records on X were delivered to Ms. Kerr. Ms. Kerr believed that Minnetonka's response was not timely and asked for an opinion on that issue. The exact wording of her request is duplicated below. In response to Ms. Kerr's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration, wrote to Dr. Donald Draayer, the Superintendent of Schools for Minnetonka. A copy of this letter was also sent to Mr. William F. Kelly, the attorney for Minnetonka. The purposes of this letter, dated January 14, 1994, were to inform Dr. Draayer and Mr. Kelly of Ms. Kerr's request, to acquaint them with the Commissioner of Administration's authority to issue opinions, to ask Minnetonka or its attorney to provide any information in support of its position and to inform them of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On January 24, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from Mr. Kelly. In his letter, Mr. Kelly acknowledged that Ms. Kerr's request had been received on November 30, 1993. He stated that under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 that . . . the responsible authority has a total of ten days in which to comply with such a request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. He described efforts by his office and Minnetonka to prepare copies of the voluminous records on X. He pointed out that delivery of the records to Ms. Kerr was accomplished with personal service on December 15, 1993, which, according to him was day eleven of the timeline. It was his opinion that Minnetonka had responded to Ms. Kerr's request in a timely manner.
Issue:
In her request, Ms. Kerr stated the issue to be addressed by the Commissioner's opinion as follows:
Discussion:
Although Ms. Kerr's request for copies of X's records is dated November 29, 1993, it appears from Mr. Kelly's letter that the request was actually received by him on November 30, 1993. In computing the time frame within which Minnetonka was required to respond, the first day is not counted against the time requirements established by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA or Chapter 13 . Under this computation of time, five days elapsed at the end of the day on December 7, 1993, and ten days elapsed at the end of the day on December 14, 1993. The parties agree that Minnetonka provided the copies of X's records to Ms. Kerr on December 15, 1993, which was the eleventh day after the legal date of the request.
Once a data subject, parent of a minor data subject or, in this case an attorney acting for the data subject, makes a request for receipt of copies of public or private data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the government entity subject to the MGDPA is required to provide those copies within certain time frames dictated by the MGDPA. Most educational data , defined as data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or by a person acting for the agency which relates to a student, are classified as private data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32.) Mr. Kelly reads Section 13.04, subdivision 3 as allowing Minnetonka to respond to Ms. Kerr's request within ten days. However, the statute clearly states that a government entity should provide the copies immediately, if possible, and if immediate compliance is not possible then the copies should be provided within five days of the request. The MGDPA does allow a government entity to stretch a response, under Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to ten days only if response within the initial five day period is not possible and the responsible authority informs the requestor that response within the initial five days is not possible and five additional days are needed. In this instance, at any time between December 1 and the end of the business day on December 7, 1993, Minnetonka could have gained an additional five days to respond by notifying Ms. Kerr, before the end of the day on December 7, that it was having problems with complying. If Minnetonka had done so, it could have, within the requirements of the MGDPA, had until December 14, 1993, to comply. For some reason, Minnetonka did not communicate its difficulty in complying until it mentioned that difficulty in Mr. Kelly's December 15, 1993, letter to Ms. Kerr that accompanied delivery of the copies of the data requested. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Kerr is as follows:
Signed:
Debra Rae Anderson
Dated: February 2, 1994
|
