Opinion Library

To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

RSS feed

Advisory Opinion 00-008

March 13, 2000; City of Roseville

3/13/2000 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 IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.

On January 24, 2000, IPA received a letter dated January 11, 2000, from Al Sands. In his letter, Mr. Sands asked that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding Mr. Sands' access to certain data that the City of Roseville maintains.

IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Steve Sarkozy, City Manager, in response to Mr. Sands' request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 1, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Sands' request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On February 10, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Edward Burrell, Finance Director.

A summary of the facts as Mr. Sands presented them is as follows. In letters dated August 3, September 1, and November 24, 1999, and January 5, 2000, Mr. Sands requested access to certain data.

In his request for an opinion, Mr. Sands wrote he had not received a response from the City.

Issue:

In his request for an opinion, Mr. Sands asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, has the City of Roseville responded appropriately to requests for access to the following data:

spell out what makes up the $4,190,089 of current year expenditures as shown on the overall summary on page 90 (see August 3, 1999, letter);

please provide me with a detail of what makes up the current 1998 administrative expense figure (by amount, to whom paid, for what purpose). Also, please provide the same recap of year to date, by year through 12/31/97, of all expenses in the administrative expense category by to whom paid, purpose, and amount since inception (see August 3, 1999, letter);

a complete listing of disbursements by date' check number' paid to' purpose' and amount' for all items charged to tif for the year 1998, and also identified by which category it falls into in your distribution summary (see September 1, 1999, letter);

I would like the detail of purchases on the Reservoir Woods project, and the phase I of the Acorn project. Paid/due to, amount, fund charge, and date of purchase (see November 24, 1999, memo);

I would like the detail behind the total non TIF revenues and expenditures. Date, description, and amount by each category showing up on F-9 (see November 24, 1999, letter); and

I would like to receive a listing of park improvements by park over the last five years, including the date (year) a description of the improvement, and the amount of improvement (see January 5, 2000, letter).

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, an individual is entitled to gain access (inspect and make copies) to public government data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.03 states that a government entity must respond to requests for public data in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300, states that the entity must respond within a reasonable time.

In his opinion request, Mr. Sands stated that (as of January 11, 2000), he had not received a response from the City or its responsible party.

Mr. Burrell, in his response to the Commissioner, discussed the specific data Mr. Sands requested. Regarding the data described above in #1, Burrell wrote that the City had provided Mr. Sands with raw data earlier but can certainly provide another copy. Regarding #2 and #3, Mr. Burrell wrote that the City had provided the ledger detail earlier but could provide another copy.

There appears to be a dispute regarding the first three items Mr. Sands requested. He wrote that as of January 11, 2000, he had not received a response from the City. In contrast, Mr. Burrell wrote that the City had provided Mr. Sands with raw and ledger data at an earlier time (he did not specify exact dates.)

Mr. Burrell's response is problematic for the following reasons. First, he did not clarify whether the raw and ledger data that the City provided are the data Mr. Sands requested. In addition, Mr. Burrell did not inform the Commissioner how soon after Mr. Sands' requests the City provided this information. Mr. Burrell wrote generally about Mr. Sands' requests:

We have previously provided Mr. Sands with much of the requested data, but several of his requests go beyond the raw information and ask us to reconcile his numbers to ours, or make other requests that are difficult if not impossible to do. That type of request, we feel is beyond what we are both bound to do and able to reasonable [sic] devote public resources to complete.

In determining how to respond to Mr. Sands' requests, the City should have figured out whether it maintains the requested data and if so, whether it maintains the data in the format in which Mr. Sands requested them. Or, if the City did not understand Mr. Sands' request, it should have asked for clarification.

If the City maintains the data but not in the format requested, the City should have so informed Mr. Sands. At that point, the City could have given Mr. Sands access to the raw data or the two parties could have negotiated an arrangement whereby the City would format the data in a specific manner. As the Commissioner has stated in previous advisory opinions, however, Chapter 13 does not require government entities to format data to fit a request.

Mr. Sands stated that the City has not responded to his requests. Mr. Burrell stated that the City has provided Mr. Sands with the raw and ledger data. The Commissioner does not have enough information to determine if the data provided are the data requested, or when the City provided the information. However, given that Mr. Sands (as of February 10) was under the impression that the City had not responded to any of his requests, it appears that the City needs to contact him and sort out the problem.

Of the three remaining data requests Mr. Sands made, Mr. Burrell stated that the City could provided the information - or portions of it. Specifically, of #4, Mr. Burrell wrote, copies of this ledger information can be provided. Regarding #5, Mr. Burrell stated, This information will be provided when it is available. Regarding #6, Mr. Burrell wrote, This information has been compiled and a copy is available to Mr. Sands.

Mr. Sands requested those data in letters dated November 24, 1999, and January 5, 2000. Given that as of January 11, the City had apparently not provided him with a response, the City has not complied with the requirements of section 13.03. Furthermore, as the Commissioner stated above, if the City does not maintain the data in the format requested, it needs to so inform Mr. Sands.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Sands is as follows:

Regarding Mr. Sands' first three requests for data, it is not clear whether the City provided him with the data he requested. If the City does not maintain the data in the requested format, it is not required to reformat those data. However, it should have so informed Mr. Sands.

Regarding Mr. Sands' last three requests for data, because the City did not respond within a reasonable time, or in a prompt and appropriate manner, it did not respond as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03.

Signed:

David F. Fisher
Commissioner

Dated: March 13, 2000

Requests for data

Entity responsibility