May 20, 2019; Houston County Agricultural Society
5/20/2019 10:24:44 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Jordan Gerard, of the Spring Grove Herald, requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner addressing whether the Houston County Agricultural Society (the “Society”) is subject to the Data Practices Act and the Open Meeting Law. Attorney Kevin Roop responded on behalf of the Society.
Ms. Gerard stated, “[t]he Houston County Agricultural Society will not abide my request for minutes, agendas and other requested materials pertinent to an issue. The Society claims they are not a public government entity and therefore not subject to the MN Open Meeting Law nor MN Govt. Data Practices Act.”
|
Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
|
Issue 1. Is the Houston County Agricultural Society Subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13)?
The Data Practices Act governs access to and the protection of government data. All government entities are subject to the Data Practices Act per Minnesota Statutes, section 13.01, subdivision 1.
Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7a defines “government entity” as “a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision.” Section 13.02, subdivision 11, goes on to define “political subdivision” as “any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance, or charter provision.”
In the case of county agricultural societies, the legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 38.01, which enables their formation.
The Commissioner previously issued Advisory Opinion 10-004. In this opinion, the Commissioner determined that the Dakota County Agricultural Society is subject to Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes. Much of the same analysis applies to the question at hand as both these entities are subject to the same enabling legislation.
The Society submitted lengthy comments in response to Ms. Gerard’s advisory opinion request, which included the following statement:
The MGDPA only applies to government entities. Under the MGDPA there are three types of governmental entities: state agencies, statewide systems, and political subdivisions. The MGDPA provides an extensive definition for “political subdivision.” However, the only section of the definition that could apply to the Society is “any board, commission, district or authority created pursuant to law, local ordinance, or charter provision.” This definition does not apply to the Society because it is not a board; It is an organization governed by a board.
The Society indicated it concedes “that it is a public body under Chapter 13D of Minnesota Statutes.” However, it went on to state, “this concession does not mean that the Society is a political subdivision under the MGDPA. Furthermore, the Society denies that it is violating or has violated the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.”
The Society argues that since Minnesota Statutes, section 38.04, states that reports required by this section are public data pursuant to Chapter 13, this section would be “superfluous” if agricultural societies “were political subdivisions under the MGDPA” and that the Legislature’s “apparent need to specify that agricultural society reports are public data implies that most of an agricultural society’s data is not public.”
The Society concluded its comments with the following statement:
The Society has followed Minnesota Law. It has given Ms. Gerard the necessary disclosures under §38.04 and the Open Meeting Law. It does not need to give her additional information because it is not a political subdivision under the MGDPA…The purpose of Ms. Gerard’s request is to use this information to harm the Spring Grove Herald’s former employees and the Houston County Agricultural Society.
The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the Society. As indicated above, and pursuant to Advisory Opinion 10-004, a county agricultural society enabled by section 38.01 is a political subdivision that is subject to the Data Practices Act. As further support for this conclusion, section 38.04 indicates that certain data maintained by the Society are public pursuant to Chapter 13. Chapter 13 is only applicable to government entities. It therefore follows that the Society is a government entity and must administer its data pursuant to the Data Practices Act.
Finally, the Commissioner notes that the reason or motivation for a public data request is not a permissible consideration in responding to a request.
Issue 2. Is the Houston County Agricultural Society Subject to the Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D)?
Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.01, subdivision 1(b)(6) indicates “[a]ll meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public…of the governing body of a…public body.”
The Society concedes that it is subject to the Open Meeting Law. The Commissioner previously issued Advisory Opinion 11-012, which addressed whether the Dakota County Agricultural Society Board is subject to the Open Meeting Law, and much of this analysis is applicable to these facts as well.
The Commissioner notes that it is the Board of the Houston County Agricultural Society that is subject to the Open Meeting Law, as it is the governing body of the Society.
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues raised is as follows:
Signed:
Alice Roberts-Davis
Commissioner
May 20, 2019
Open Meeting Law
Response to data requests
Statutory responsibilities government
Government data
Entities subject to
Open Meeting Law
Agriculture
