To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
January 23, 1996; City of Minneapolis
1/23/1996 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 citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.On November 27, 1995, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from Lindsay R. M. Jones, an attorney representing the Minnesota Tenants Union, in which he described his client's attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority (MPHA.) Mr. Jones enclosed copies of relevant correspondence. In response to Mr. Jones' request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Cora McCorvey, Executive Director of the MPHA. The purposes of this letter, dated December 5, 1995, were to inform Ms. McCorvey of Mr. Jones' request, to ask her or the MPHA's attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Jones and Ms. McCorvey were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, as allowed by statute, to issue this opinion.) On December 12, 1995, PIPA received a response from Louis N. Smith, an attorney representing the MPHA. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. On September 13, 1995, Kirk Hill, Director of the Minnesota Tenants Union, wrote to Ms. McCorvey, and requested access to the survey conducted by the MPHA of Sumner-Olson, Glenwood, and other public housing tenants as part of the [Hollman v. Cisneros] lawsuit. On October 26, 1985, Mr. Smith responded to Mr. Hill. Mr. Smith wrote: [w]e have determined that the data you requested constitutes protected non-public data under Minnesota Statute Section 13.39 (investigative data). Accordingly, we have advised the MPHA not to produce the data to you. Mr. Smith also advised Mr. Hill that the MPHA had requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner of Administration concerning the proper classification of the survey data. (See Commissioner's Advisory Opinion 95-054.)
In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Smith wrote:
Issues:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Jones asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
Discussion:
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03 contains the general provisions that govern public access to government data. Subdivision 1 provides: [t]he responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.
Section 13.03, subdivision 2, provides: [t]he responsible authority . . . shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.
Section 13.03, subdivision 3 provides:
In addition, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 3, provides that [t]he responsible authority shall establish procedures to describe how [access to public data] may be gained. The procedures established shall be in compliance with [Section] 13.03. . . . In such procedures, the responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a reasonable time. In summary, these provisions require government entities to maintain data in such manner as to enable them to respond to requests for access to government data appropriately and promptly. If the government entity determines that the classification of the data is something other than public, the government entity is required to so notify the requester orally at the time it receives the request, or in writing as soon as possible thereafter. Mr. Hill requested access to government data maintained by the MPHA, which he apparently assumed were public, on September 13, 1995. From the copies of the correspondence between Mr. Hill and the MPHA, the data sought by Mr. Hill were clearly identified by him. The MPHA apparently did not, at any time, suggest to Mr. Hill that the data did not exist. However, the MPHA did not provide Mr. Hill with any response to his request for six weeks. Six weeks after the date of his request, Mr. Hill was informed that the MPHA considered the data to be classified as protected nonpublic data, and therefore not accessible to him. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 13.) At the same time, he was informed that the MPHA was seeking confirmation of its position in the form of a Commissioner's advisory opinion. Essentially, all three of the issues to be addressed in this opinion relate to whether the MPHA met its full obligation, under Chapter 13, to provide Mr. Hill with a prompt, reasonable and appropriate response to his request. Clearly, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1, the MPHA is required to maintain its government data in such an arrangement and condition as to be easily accessible for convenient use. Mr. Jones asked whether the MPHA had done so. The MPHA did not determine the proper classification of the survey data, and communicate that to Mr. Hill, for six weeks. The MPHA did not seek assistance in the form of a Commissioner's advisory opinion for six weeks. The Commissioner cannot determine with certainty whether the MPHA was maintaining the survey data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. However, given the MPHA's lack of any response to Mr. Hill for six weeks, it is reasonable to assume that if the survey data were being maintained as such, the MPHA ought to have been able to respond to Mr. Hill's request within days, not weeks. The second issue is whether the MPHA's October 26, 1995, response to the Tenants Union's September 13, 1995, letter requesting government data was prompt as required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2. The Legislature has not provided a specific definition of prompt so guidance is appropriately sought from a dictionary. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 645.08.) As defined in The American Heritage Dictionary, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, prompt means on time; punctual; done without delay. According to the plain words of the statute, when read in light of the dictionary definitions, a response to a request for data, delivered six weeks later, cannot be considered prompt. The third issue is whether the MPHA's response to Mr. Hill was within a reasonable time pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0300, subpart 2. As defined in The American Heritage Dictionary, College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985, reasonable means within the bounds of common sense; not excessive or extreme; fair. Again, a response six weeks later, in a case in which the data requested were clearly identified, cannot be construed to be either prompt or reasonable. Further, pursuant to subdivision 3 of Section 13.03, the MPHA was required to communicate its determination regarding the classification of the survey to Mr. Hill at the time he made his request, or as soon after that time as possible. The MPHA did not provide information to the Commissioner about its data practices policies and procedures. However, in instances like this one, those procedures ought to provide for a response to Mr. Hill's request within a matter of days, not weeks. For further discussion of this issue, see Commissioner's Advisory Opinion 95-006. Given the realities of large-scale data collection and generation by government entities, there may be instances in which a request for access to government data is complicated due to confusion as to what specific data are sought. That is not the case here. Therefore, the MPHA ought to have told Mr. Hill that the survey data were not public, pursuant to Section 13.39, and/or sought assistance from the Commissioner in the form of an advisory opinion, in less than six weeks' time. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Jones is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: January 23, 1996
|
Response to data requests
Definition of prompt or reasonable time
