July 7, 1999; Metropolitan Airports Commission
7/7/1999 10:16:43 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 June 3, 1999, IPA received a letter dated June 4, 1999, from L. In this letter, L asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding L's access to certain data about L that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) maintains. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Anderson, General Counsel for the MAC, in response to L's request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 9, 1999, were to inform him of L's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the MAC's position. On June 18, 1999, IPA received a response, dated same, from Mr. Anderson. A summary of the facts as presented by L is as follows. In a letter dated May 20, 1999, L wrote to Mr. Anderson, It appears to me that MAC has several files under my name. I would like to have access to each file and examine the documents myself. In his opinion request, L wrote, More than 15 days have gone by and I have not heard from the General Counsel's office. I also called his office twice this week and they have not answered my calls. L then requested this opinion. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, L asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, a data subject is entitled to inspect or obtain copies of government data of which s/he is the subject. Subdivision 3 of section 13.04 states that the government entity must allow inspection or provide copies immediately or within five working days. If the entity is unable to respond within the first five days, it must so notify the requestor and may then take an additional five working days to respond. In this case, L asked to inspect data in a May 20, 1999, letter. As of June 4, 1999, L wrote that MAC had not responded to his/her request. Mr. Anderson, on behalf of MAC, wrote: [L] stated...that more than 15 days have gone by since his request and that he has not heard from our office. For your information, a copy of MAC's response, dated June 17, 1999, to [L's] request of May 20, 1999 is enclosed. It is MAC's practice to respond in an appropriate and timely manner to all requests for data....However, the content and complexity of [L's] request dated May 20, 1999 has precluded MAC from responding within this timeframe. In addition, the individual who has prepared MAC's responses to [L's] requests was sick and on vacation for a number of days. Mr. Anderson disputed L's assertion that the MAC had not returned L's calls during the week of May 31, 1999. Mr. Anderson stated, We did not receive any phone calls in our department from [L], nor do we have any record of receiving any voicemail messages from [L]. He added, If we had received a phone call or voicemail message from [L], [L's] call would have been returned in an expedient manner. To his response, Mr. Anderson attached a copy of the June 17, 1999, letter to L. In this letter, Mr. Anderson stated that two files are responsive to [L's] request and that L should contact MAC to arrange a mutually convenient time to look at the data. Mr. Anderson wrote that other data maintained by MAC about L are not available to L pursuant to section 13.30, attorney data, and section 13.39, civil investigative data. L requested access to data in a letter dated May 20, 1999. Pursuant to section 13.04, if the MAC could not respond immediately or within the next five working days, it needed to so inform L. The MAC neither gave L any notification nor provided L with a response until June 17, 1999, approximately 17 working days later. This was not timely. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue L raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: July 7, 1999 |
