To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
October 11, 2001; School District 276 (Minnetonka)
10/11/2001 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, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access. On September 25, 2001, IPA received a letter from Michael P. Herbst. In this letter, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the appropriateness of the response he received from Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, to a request for public data. Mr. Herbst also asked the Commissioner to address the issue of the District's compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, concerning the appointment of a responsible authority. In response to Mr. Herbst's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Dennis Peterson, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated October 1, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Herbst's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On October 9, 2001, IPA received a response from Gloria B. Olsen and Kimberly H. Boyd, attorneys for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In an email dated April 19, 2001, Mr. Herbst wrote to Mark Wolak, Assistant Superintendent of the District, asking to inspect operational expenses for the past five years. In his email, Mr. Herbst indicated that it was his understanding that Mr. Wolak was acting as the responsible authority for the District and that if this was not the case, that his request be forwarded to the responsible authority. On April 23, 2001, Mr. Wolak acknowledged Mr. Herbst's request, would determine the responsible authority and work to find the data that had been requested. On April 24, 2001, Mr. Wolak sent an email to Mr. Herbst requesting that he clarify his request. On April 25, 2001 Mr. Herbst clarified his requests to be (1) the identity of the point person in charge of data dissemination for the district, (2) expenses for the last five years (identified by fiscal year) for District (Second) Level Operational Costs and, First Level Operational Costs as identified in the District Report entitled 1997-98 Operating Budget Task Force - Report of the Task Force to the Superintendent dated March 14, 1997. Data were provided to Mr. Herbst in a meeting on May 15, 2001. On May 31, 2001, Mr. Herbst sent an email to Mr. Wolak asking for ...Expenditures for fiscal year 95-96 in the same format that was provided at the meeting. On June 13, 2001, Mr. Herbst sent another email to Mr. Wolak requesting inspection of the 1995-1996 operational expenses. The District provided the data to Mr. Herbst on July 23, 2001. In their response on behalf of the District, Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd indicate that the data for the 1995-1996 operational expenditures did not exist and had to be created. With respect to the designation of a responsible authority for the District, Mr. Herbst asked for the identity of the responsible authority in his emails of April 19, 2001 and April 25, 2001. Mr. Wolak's email of April 24, 2001 indicates that he will be handling the response to Mr. Herbst's request but does not specifically state that he is the responsible authority for the District. In the District's response, Ms. Olsen and Ms. Boyd indicate that Mr. Wolak acted as the responsible authority at the time of Mr. Herbst's response. They did not indicate if there is a responsible authority currently designated for the District. Issues:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Herbst asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
Discussion:1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, respond appropriately to May 31, 2001, and June 13, 2001, requests for access to public government data? The data Mr. Herbst requested from the District are public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03. Therefore, the District needs to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner and within a reasonable time. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2 and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0300. The question then becomes whether a delay from May 31, 2001 to July 23, 2001 is appropriate, prompt and within a reasonable time. Mr. Herbst asked for the 1995-96 data to be produced in a specific format. In its response, the District indicates that it did not have the data in that format. It chose to organize the data into the format requested by Mr. Herbst before producing it. The District explained its delay by stating that it was in the process of hiring a superintendent, completing the budget process, and the two people responsible for responding took vacation time. There is nothing in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) that requires a government entity to produce data in a format that it does not have. See Advisory Opinions 01-001, 01-002, 01-011, 01-012, 01-025, 00-008, 00-017, 00-048 and 00-057. The appropriate response here should have been for the District to inform Mr. Herbst in a timely manner that the data were not available in the format that he had requested. The District did not do that. It does not appear that the District communicated at all with Mr. Herbst between June 13, 2001 and July 23, 2001 concerning his request. This is not an appropriate, prompt or reasonably timely response. Because the District chose to organize the data into the format requested by Mr. Herbst, they had an obligation to provide the data within a reasonable period of time. A delay of 8 weeks to provide public data does not seem to be a reasonable period of time and so the District did not respond appropriately to Mr. Herbst's requests of May 31, 2001 and June 13, 2001. The reasons given for the delay, while presenting practical inconveniences to the District, are not supported in the law as justification for a failure to respond in a reasonable time. 2. Is Independent School District 276, Minnetonka, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding the appointment of a responsible authority? Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 16 requires each government entity to appoint a responsible authority. The responsible authority is an employee responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of government data maintained by the government entity. In the case of a school district, the school board needs to designate the responsible authority. Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0200, subpart 14, subparagraph C. A form resolution for the appointment can be found at Minnesota Rules, section 1205.2000, subpart 3. The responsible authority is the position that ensures compliance with the MGDPA, assures that citizens and subjects of data have appropriate access to government data and that data are maintained in a manner that is easily accessible for convenient use. The District indicates that at the time Mr. Herbst made his data request, Mr. Wolak ...acted as the designee or responsible authority.... From the District's response, it appears that it is not certain what role Mr. Wolak was playing. Appointment of a responsible authority is a requirement of the MGDPA. If Mr. Wolak was, in fact, the responsible authority for the District at the time of Mr. Herbst's request, the District did not provide this data to Mr. Herbst in response to his request. This failure to respond to a data practices request is not appropriate or in compliance with the MGDPA. In addition, the District has not indicated, who, if anyone, has been appointed by the School Board to be the responsible authority for the District now. Therefore, the District may not be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regarding the appointment of a responsible authority. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Herbst is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: October 11, 2001 |
Copy costs
Existence of data
Response to data requests
Responsible authority
New data or different format not required
Requestor must be informed
Appointment required
