To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
July 29, 2002; Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning
7/29/2002 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:On June 20, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL). In response to Mr. Pachl's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christine Jax, Commissioner of CFL. The purposes of this letter, dated June 25, 2002, were to inform her of Mr. Pachl's request and to ask her to provide information or support for CFL's position. On July 11, 2002, IPAD received a response from Tammy L. Pust, Assistant Commissioner CFL. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a letter dated May 8, 2002, which was faxed to CFL on May 9, 2002, Mr. Pachl requested the following data: the State Eligibility Document for IDEA which was given conditional approval on July 1, 2001 pending six technical amendments to our statutes. CFL did not respond. According to Mr. Pachl, he called CFL on June 18, 2002, to inquire about the status of his request. He stated that JoAnne Lawonn, CFL's Data Practices Compliance Official, returned his call on June 19, 2002, and told him that CFL is short staffed and working on [his] request. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Pust stated: [a]t the time CFL received Mr. Pachl's request, the requested document was not yet in final version. CFL had anticipated that the document would be final towards the end of May. Unfortunately, CFL did not timely advise Mr. Pachl of the status or reason for the delay in responding to his request. (After receiving payment from Mr. Pachl, CFL sent the data to him on July 9, 2002.) Ms. Pust also stated the following: In order to avoid this problem in the future, CFL has taken the following action:
Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time. The Commissioner has the following comments. Ms. Pust stated that the document Mr. Pachl requested was not in final form at the time of his request. However, draft versions of public data are public. The most appropriate response would have been for CFL, upon receiving Mr. Pachl's request, to inform him that the data he requested were not in final form. If this had occurred, Mr. Pachl then could have decided if he wanted a copy of the draft, or preferred to wait until the document was in final form. Instead, CFL did not respond at all to Mr. Pachl's request until it received a telephone call from Mr. Pachl, some six weeks later. Such a response is neither prompt nor made within a reasonable time. CFL acknowledges that it did not respond appropriately to Mr. Pachl's request, and that it has taken steps to ensure that such a situation will not recur. The Commissioner notes that he has addressed issues of CFL's failure to respond at all to other data requests from Mr. Pachl in three earlier Advisory Opinions, namely 01-054, 01-071, and 02-025. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: July 29, 2002 |
Response to data requests
Draft documents
Inappropriate response, generally
