To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
March 3, 1998; University of Minnesota
3/3/1998 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 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 PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On January 22, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated January 16, 1998, from James Paddock. In his letter, Mr. Paddock requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to data maintained by the University of Minnesota. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University, in response to Mr. Paddock's request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 27, 1998, were to inform her of Mr. Paddock's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University's position. On February 3, 1998, PIPA received a response dated February 2, 1998, from Ms. Smith. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated October 6, 1997, Mr. Paddock requested access to all existing data pertaining to the following: 1. The number of UMD Hockey players receiving athletic scholarships, financial aid, work study hours and housing stipends. Please include the years 1990 to 1997. 2. All written correspondence between the NCAA and the UMD Athletic Director, pertaining to UMD Hockey violations. Please include any self reported violations to the NCAA pertaining to the Booster Clubs or the UMD Hockey team. In a letter dated December 19, 1997, Susan McKinney, Responsible Authority for the University, wrote: I received your voice mail message today regarding the data requests made on October, [sic] 1997. Unfortunately, I misplaced the original requests, and did not get the requests to Duluth in order for them to gather the documents....I am so sorry for the delay. I have faxed the requests to Judith Karon, at the University of Minnesota, Duluth today. Ms. Karon will let you know when the information has been gathered. In his opinion request, Mr. Paddock wrote, I have called Susan McKinney on a weekly basis since December 19, 1997. I have not received any data from my request. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Paddock asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:The Commissioner must first address a comment made by Ms. Smith in her response to Mr. Paddock's opinion request. Ms. Smith stated that she did not have enough time to respond. She wrote, Given that short time frame, I have not had the chance to obtain documents from UMD and my response is therefore necessarily rather general. As Ms. Smith is aware, pursuant to Section 13.072, the Commissioner has authority to extend, by thirty days, the original twenty-day deadline within which opinions are to be issued. If Ms. Smith required more time to respond, the Commissioner would have granted her an extension. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. In addition, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, requires that entities respond within a reasonable time. Regarding the first of Mr. Paddock's October 6, 1997, requests, Ms. Smith argued that Mr. Paddock requested summary data as that term is defined in Section 13.02, subdivision 19. Ms. Smith further stated that because the request was for summary data (see Section 13.05, subdivision 7), the University is permitted to charge Mr. Paddock for the cost of preparing the summary data. She wrote, The University is still exploring the amount of time it will take to compile the summary data as well as the cost of preparing that data. The University will inform Mr. Paddock of the anticipated cost of preparing the summary data as soon as we have that estimate. Ms. Smith is correct that pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 7, upon written request, a government entity must prepare summary data and the cost of such preparation shall be borne by the requesting party. However, if Mr. Paddock's request was for summary data as that term is defined in Chapter 13, the University is still obligated to respond within ten days. (See Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0700.) Thus, the University's response was not timely. The second of Mr. Paddock's October 6, 1997, data requests was for public data. As stated above, pursuant to Section 13.03 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, the University is required to respond within a reasonable time. Mr. Paddock's request was dated October 6, 1997. He stated that he called Ms. McKinney on October 20, 1997, and she said she would call Judith Karon at UMD and ask her about [Mr. Paddock's] request. However, approximately eight weeks later, in a letter dated December 19, 1997, Ms. McKinney apologized and stated that she had misplaced his original requests and that she had faxed the requests to [Ms. Karon] today. Approximately four weeks later, in a letter dated January 16, 1998, Mr. Paddock requested this opinion and Ms. Smith, in her response, stated, The University is still investigating whether there are any public documents in response to this request. Approximately four months time passed between Mr. Paddock's request and the time Ms. Smith responded to the Commissioner regarding Mr. Paddock's opinion request. As of the date of her letter, February 2, 1998, the University had neither provided Mr. Paddock with the data nor advised him that the data are not public and, therefore, not accessible to him. The University did not respond in a timely manner. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Paddock is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: March 3, 1998 |
Inspection
Reasonable time and place (1205.0300, subp. 3)
