Discussion:

The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides:

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 his response, Mr. Lombard disputed X's assertions. He stated, No one at DCFL has required [X] to identify [him/herself] or justify the reason for the request in order to gain access to the data. He wrote that X often identified him/herself in communications with DCFL, that X often requested private data (which requires identification), and that many of X's communications were not requests for data.

Mr. Lombard also wrote that in following standard office practice, DCFL staff may ask a caller, Who is on the line? or What is this call about? prior to knowing that an individual is calling to request access to public data.

Finally, Mr. Lombard allowed that certain situations may require DCFL to obtain identifying information in order to facilitate access to the data. He wrote:

If a requestor wants the data sent to him/her, the agency must know where to send the documents. Also, an agency may want to follow-up with an individual to make sure that the data was sent. Further, an agency may be entitled to payment for copies of documents and will need to know how to collect. In these circumstances, an agency may ask the individual for identifying information. As long as the agency provides an alternative way to accommodate the data request if the requestor declines to provide the information, there is no violation of law.

In this case, there is a factual dispute that the Commissioner cannot resolve. X alleges that on several occasions, s/he was asked to identify him/herself and to justify requests for data. Mr. Lombard asserts that no one at DCFL has required such information from X. Section 13.05, subdivision 12, clearly states that a government entity cannot require individuals making requests for public data to identify themselves or to justify their requests, unless the entity requires such information to facilitate a response. If DCFL employees requested identifying information and/or justifications for any requests, DCFL is in violation of Chapter 13. If DCFL employees did not request such information, no violation has occurred.

A couple of additional comments are in order. Mr. Lombard is correct that in some situations it may be necessary for an entity to obtain identifying information about a requestor. For instance, if an individual wants copies of data mailed to him/her, it is necessary for the entity to obtain the person's name and address. However, if an individual does not want to provide such information, it is up to the entity and the individual to work out a mutually agreeable solution. For instance, if an individual wants copies of data, but does not want to provide a name and mailing address, the entity could place the data in an envelope and require that the individual pick up the information during regular business hours. The requestor then would be able to obtain the data without identifying him/herself.

Finally, in the past, the Commissioner has opined that government entities, as part of the policies and procedures they establish to ensure appropriate access to government data, may require the data requestor to put the request in writing. The new provisions of section 13.05, subdivision 12, will have some effect on such policies. Clearly, government entities now may not require identification from public data requestors. However, we think it is reasonable for a government entity, as part of its data access policies and procedures, to require a written description of the data sought, without requiring the requestor to include her/his identification, reasons or justification. Requiring a written description of the data does not offend the statute, but can ensure clarification that promotes compliance with a request for public government data.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows: