This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2023). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

On August 19, 2024, Chris Hanson (Hanson) asked for an advisory opinion regarding his right to access data from the City of Kasota (City) under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The City’s legal counsel provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.

A summary of the facts is as follows:

In an email to the City Clerk dated August 12, 2024, Hanson requested that the City allow him to inspect various public data under section 13.03, subdivision 3, including data documenting different City expenditures, resolutions, employment policies, hiring and termination processes, service contracts, and receipts and invoices over the course of several years. Hanson did not directly identify himself in the data request. Rather, he sent the email from a non-identifying email address with a displayed name of “anonymous,” and he signed the data request as “Concerned citizens.”

On August 13, the City Attorney responded to the data request in a letter, writing:

Since Concerned Citizens is not an individual as defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 13, the City of Kasota is unable to honor your request. You will note that the statute you quoted – M.S. § 13.03, Subd. 3 requires that the request for access to data must be made by a person. Since Concerned Citizens is not a person as defined by statute, until such time as you are able to identify a person as defined by Minnesota Statute Chapter 13, the City of Kasota is unable to honor your request.

On August 14, Hanson sent another email to the City Attorney and City Clerk from the non-identifying email address restating his data request. He also included the language of section 13.02, subdivision 10, which defines “person” for the purposes of the Data Practices Act. Hansen signed this email as “citizen of kasota” [sic].

On August 15, the City Attorney responded by email, writing:

In my opinion, the term “Concerned Citizen” fails to identify a person as defined by the statute you quote. Since the statute you quote MS 13.03 Subd. 3. (c), allows the City to require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching and retrieving government data, it is necessary for you to identify yourself and provide the City with a billing address. If you disagree with my opinion, you are welcome to request a Court Order finding that “Concerned Citizen” is in fact a person as defined by statute.

That same day, Hanson responded through the non-identifying email address by restating his request and writing, in part:

The city of Kasota and the designated authority in charge of the MGDPA is not working in good faith to provide this data. I have identified myself as a resident of the state of MN, and Citizen of Kasota. I must have reasonable access to this data while remaining anonymous. I will provide a billing address once a cost estimate will be provided.

On August 16, the City Attorney sent an email again noting that he was unable to identify “Concerned Citizen” as a person under the law. He added, “If you provide me with your legal authority, including cited case law, which states that ‘Concerned Citizen’ is a person defined by statute, I will reconsider my position.”

Later that day, Hanson responded through the non-identifying email, writing, “I choose to identify myself at this time. I am a concerned citizen, and I am requesting the data in this request.” Hanson identified himself as “C Hanson” and included an address. Hanson then re-stated his data request.

Issue:

Discussion:

Minnesota Statues, section 13.02, subdivision 10 defines a “person” as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, business trust, or a legal representative of an organization.”

Section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) requires a government entity to establish procedures to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time when receiving a data request from a person who wants access to public data. (See also Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.)

Section 13.03, subdivision 3 prohibits government entities from charging any fees when a person requests to inspect public data. However, government entities may charge specific copy cost fees if the person requests copies of public data.

Additionally, section 13.05, subdivision 12 states:

“Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data.”

In its response to the Commissioner, the City wrote:

It is the City’s position that once Mr. Hanson clearly identified himself with a billing address and restricted his original request to the request to observe the documents in person, the City promptly and in good faith complied with his Data Practices request. It is the City’s position that it followed the statute by requiring identification in order to clarify that Mr. Hanson was in fact an individual and understood that he had a financial obligation by statute.

The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that the City met its obligations under the Data Practices Act.

The plain language of section 13.05, subd. 12 prohibits government entities from requiring data requesters to identify themselves as a condition to obtain access to public data.

Here, the City repeatedly informed Hanson that it would not respond to his data request until he provided more identifying information about himself than “Concerned citizens” or “citizen of kasota,” and it agreed to begin processing Hanson’s request only after he eventually identified himself despite his several objections.

The City’s refusal to respond to Hanson’s data request violated the language of section 13.05, subd. 12, which clearly allows a “person” — which is defined as broadly including both individuals and other types of non-individual organizations under the language of section 13.02, subd. 10 — to request data using a pseudonym.

Additionally, the Commissioner agrees that the City can recover specific costs when providing a requester with copies of public data. However, Hanson stated in his August 12 data request that he was “asking to inspect this data under Minnesota statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.”

Under section 13.03, subd. 3(a), government entities “may not assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a fee to inspect data,” and it was not appropriate for the City to require that Hanson first provide identifying information so it could calculate copy costs.

Even if Hanson had requested copies, the City’s ability to charge copy costs does not override the Data Practices Act’s prohibition on a government entity requiring requesters to identify themselves in order to access public data. Rather, section 13.03, subd. 3, read together with section 13.05, subd. 12, requires a government entity to have procedures in place that would allow pseudonymous data requesters to pay for and obtain copies of public data in an appropriate and prompt manner without the need for requesters to identify themselves.

Therefore, the City’s response to Hanson’s request for public data was not appropriate when it declined to provide access to data until he disclosed identifying information about himself.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:

The City of Kasota did not respond appropriately to a request for public data when it informed the requester that it would not provide access to data until the requester provided identifying information about himself.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

October 3, 2024