Discussion:

As noted above, Mr. Foy made three arguments to support his conclusion that the Commissioner does not possess the authority to issue this opinion. His first assertion is, ...Since there has been no determination regarding data practices by the City, Mr. Quiram's statutorily mandated condition precedent to requesting this opinion has not been met.... The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the statement that a determination has not been made. Often times, a determination occurs by default when a government entity simply chooses not to respond to a request. In other words, inaction becomes an action. This is especially true given that Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205 require a government entity to respond to requests for access to public data within a reasonable time or in a appropriate and prompt manner. Under the statute, a response of some sort is required.

In Advisory Opinion 94-027 the Commissioner responded to the very same argument made currently by Mr. Foy:

With regard to the current opinion, Mr. Quiram made an initial request to Waterville's police chief and was advised that part of the request needed to be directed to another Waterville employee. Mr. Quiram then redirected part of his request to the appropriate person but received no response. In addition, Mr. Quiram made a more detailed request to the police chief relating to data apparently maintained by the chief. Mr. Quiram received no response to his more detailed request. Pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, government entities are required to respond for requests to access to data within a reasonable time and in an appropriate and prompt manner. Given that Mr. Quiram made his requests in mid-April, 1995, and had heard nothing by May 6, 1995, the Commissioner considers this lack of response by Waterville to be a determination.

Mr. Foy's second assertion is, ...the Commissioner's opinion making powers are limited, under those circumstances, to rendering opinions solely on the person's rights as a subject of government data or rights to access to this data.... Again, the Commissioner addressed this very same issue in Advisory Opinion 94-027:

Because the issues raised by Mr. Quiram regard his rights as a citizen to gain access to government data under Chapter 13, it is the position of the Commissioner that she has the authority to address those issues in this opinion.

Mr. Foy's third assertion is, ...The Commissioner has no authority, however, to decide whether a violation has in fact occurred. The Commissioner lacks the power to go beyond the express grant of authority in the statute to issue an opinion on such a basis.... The Commissioner addressed this very same issue in Advisory Opinion 93-004:

The Commissioner's position on the aforementioned issue raised by Mr. Foy has not changed since Mr. Foy's colleague, Ms. Blumstein, raised the same issue in connection with Advisory Opinion 93-004, which was issued on November 12, 1993.

Mr. Quiram requested an opinion because he has experienced difficulty in obtaining public government data from Waterville. Before discussing the specific types of public data Mr. Quiram is seeking, it is appropriate to review some of the basic requirements set forth in Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205 relating to access to public data. Minnesota Rules 1205.0300, subpart 3, requires that requests for access to data be responded to within a reasonable time. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, requires that government entities 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, requires the responsible authority to establish procedures to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. Section 13.03, subdivision 3, states:

In summary, these provisions require government entities to respond to requests for access to government data within a reasonable time. 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.

As stated above, Mr. Quiram requested this opinion because he maintains he has experienced difficulty in obtaining certain types of public data from Waterville. Some of the data he seeks are collected by the Waterville Police Department and recorded on ICRs and dispatch logs, and some of the data are personnel data maintained by Waterville about Waterville employees. Mr. Quiram believes that the data he seeks are public and seeks the Commissioner's assistance in so verifying. Mr. Quiram is aware that Section 13.03, subdivision 3, provides him with certain rights regarding his ability to gain access to public government data and he believes that Waterville is not complying with those statutory requirements.

Two of the requests made by Mr. Quiram are for data collected and recorded on ICRs and dispatch logs. Upon his initial request, Mr. Quiram was advised by Chief Bluhm as to how to view the ICRs. (The Commissioner wishes to note that the Chief's response to Mr. Quiram, which directed him to use the key in the Desk Drawer if the files containing ICRs were locked, does not appear to have been appropriate. Mr. Quiram requested access to the ICRs as a member of the public, not as an employee of the Waterville Police Department.) As Mr. Quiram viewed the ICRs, he determined that some of the ICRs were not in evidence. When Mr. Quiram asked for those specific ICRs, he received no response from Chief Bluhm. Similarly, when Mr. Quiram requested access to the dispatch logs, he received no response.

Pursuant to Chapter 13, certain types of data collected by law enforcement agencies are public data, regardless of the form or document on which they are maintained. Section 13.82, subdivisions 2, 3, and 4, state specifically which arrest data, request for service data, and response for service data collected by law enforcement agencies are public data. It is highly likely that both the ICRs and dispatch logs will contain arrest data, request for service data, and/or response for service data. Generally speaking, if Waterville maintains any of these types of data, Mr. Quiram, as a member of the public, should have access to those data.

In his response to whether data collected by the Waterville Police Department and recorded on ICRs are public data, Mr. Foy listed the public data elements contained in Section 13.82, subdivision 4. In response to whether data contained on Waterville Police Department dispatch logs are public data, Mr. Foy listed the public data elements contained in Section 13.82, subdivision 3. In addition to the above, Mr. Foy cited Section 13.82, subdivisions 9 and 10, which provide for limitations on public access to law enforcement data. However, he offered no comments regarding the significance of his citation to those two subdivisions.

Mr. Foy also did not directly address the issue of why Mr. Quiram has received no response to his requests for certain ICRs and dispatch logs. Pursuant to Section 13.03 and Section 13.82, all public data contained on those ICRs and dispatch logs must be made available to Mr. Quiram within a reasonable time. If Waterville has determined that the data are protected and classified as private by Section 13.82, subdivision 10, Waterville's responsible authority is required, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 3, to so inform Mr. Quiram. Mr. Quiram has received no such notification in response to his request.

Mr. Quiram also seeks access to certain personnel data about employees of Waterville. Specifically, he requested a job description for the position of city police dispatcher. He also requested the previous work experience, education and training background, current salary, the basis for and the amount of any added remuneration in addition to salary, and the name of the supervisor for Ruth Kramer, the current Waterville police dispatcher. In addition, Mr. Quiram requested the education and training background, and the existence and status of any complaints of three Waterville employees. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, describes the specific types of data about public employees which are public data.

In his response, Mr. Foy listed the personnel data elements that are public pursuant to 13.43, subdivision 2. In addition, he stated that Waterville responded to Mr. Quiram's request for a job description for the police dispatcher by informing him that the City has none. If this is so, it was not communicated to Mr. Quiram in response to his April 17, 1995, request. In fact, as stated above, at the time Mr. Quiram requested this opinion, he had received no response to his April 17, 1995, letter in which he requested access to other types of data which Waterville clearly maintains, such as salary, and data which Waterville probably maintains, such as education and training background.

Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, it appears that aside from one exception, all of the personnel data requested by Mr. Quiram are public data. (The Commissioner wishes to note that while names of supervisors are not listed as one of the public data elements in subdivision 2, it is likely that Mr. Quiram could determine that information by requesting other types of Section 13.43, subdivision 2, public data about certain Waterville employees, such as a job title, a job description, and/or a work location.) Therefore, based on Section 13.43, Mr. Quiram has the right to view and receive copies of the personnel data he has requested, with one exception, within a reasonable time. If the data do not exist, it is reasonable to expect that Waterville would simply so inform Mr. Quiram.

Opinion: