March 26, 2001; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)
3/26/2001 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 January 22, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin. In response to X's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated January 31, 2001, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On February 14, 2001, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a letter dated January 12, 2001, X requested copies of certain data about X's minor child, a student in the District. In response, the District wrote X: [t]he cost of the copies is $14.00, which includes the cost of labor to prepare the copies (15 minutes of administrative time at $50.00 per hour) and $.15 per page (10 pages). When X questioned the $50.00 per hour labor cost, X was told that the person who made the copies is an administrator. X then asked to inspect data documenting that individual's salary. According to the data the District provided to X, the administrator is employed full-time, i.e., 260 days, at a salary of $43,550 per year. The fringe benefit is $9,850; salary and fringe total $53,400. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated: Although it is the position of the District that its administrative charge of $50 per hour is reasonable, on or about February 6, 2001, the Commissioner issued Advisory Opinions 01-018, 01-019 and 01-020 with its interpretation that the fee schedule used by the District is not allowable pursuant to Minn. Stat. sections 13.03 and 13.04. Because Advisory Opinions 01-018, 01-019 and 01-020 were issued after the instant request for response to request for an opinion, the District will review its fee schedule and its corresponding labor charges for any necessary changes as well as follow-up with [X] to ensure that the labor cost charged to [X] reflect [sic] the actual labor cost. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:In Advisory Opinion 00-054, which also involved District 11, the Commissioner opined: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when an individual requests copies of government data, the entity may charge a fee. Section 13.03 provides government entities with guidelines for establishing an appropriate charge when the requestor is not the subject of the data. Section 13.04 sets forth different parameters for situations in which the requestor is the subject of the data. The key difference is that if the data requestor is not the data subject, the entity may include in its charge the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data. If the data requestor is the data subject, the entity may not charge for searching for and retrieving the data and may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules, parts 1205.0300 and 1205.0400, provide some additional guidance regarding what government entities might consider in determining a reasonable fee for copies of government data, regardless of whether or not the requestor is asking for data about him/herself. X requested copies of data relating to X's minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, the requirements provided at section 13.04, subdivision 3, are applicable to X's request. Under section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District may charge only those costs directly associated with the making and compiling of the copies. (X did not request certified copies of the data.) The District did not provide documentation that it incurs an actual cost of $20.00 per hour to make and compile copies, beyond the per page copy cost. The situation here is essentially the same as that detailed in Advisory Opinion 00-054. The District stated that its administrative time charge to make photocopies is $50.00 per hour. However, the administrator's salary and fringe benefit total $53,400. At an hourly rate calculated on a full-time basis, i.e., 2080 hours, salary and fringe are paid at $25.67 per hour. The District has not met the burden of establishing that $50.00 per hour represents its actual labor cost to make the copies of the data X requested. Mr. Cady acknowledged that the District is reviewing its fee schedule and will ensure that the labor cost charged to X will reflect its actual cost. As the District reviews its fee schedule, the Commissioner would like to reiterate a point made in an earlier Opinion, regarding the propriety of calculating the labor cost to make photocopies at an administrator's salary rate. In Advisory Opinion 00-027, the Commissioner opined: In this case, the Chief [of police in a City] states that due to the employee complement in the office, it is appropriate that he conduct the search, retrieval, and copying of relevant data. This is his decision to make, as the manager of the office. However, it would not be fair or prudent, then, for the city to also charge for the fully allocated cost associated with that assignment. Rather, the individual should pay only that amount of the actual costs incurred which would be equal to the fully allocated cost associated with use of a city employee in a clerical position. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: March 26, 2001 |
