To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
February 24, 2006; Minnesota Department of Revenue
2/24/2006 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 January 10, 2006, IPAD received a letter from John Musgjerd, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Minnesota Department of Revenue (Department.) In response to Mr. Musgjerd's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dan Salomone, Commissioner of the Department. The purposes of this letter, dated January 17, 2006, were to inform him of Mr. Musgjerd's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department's position. On February 7, 2006, IPAD received a response from Harriet J. Sims, Supervising Attorney representing the Department. A summary of the facts as Mr. Musgjerd presented them follows. In a letter to Commissioner Salomone, dated June 5, 2005, Mr. Musgjerd wrote: [a]s the investigation into misconduct by the Greenwood City Assessing Officer is now formally concluded, I am requesting to inspect all of the records detailing your department's investigation. (Mr. Musgjerd submitted documents relating to his earlier efforts to gain access to these data. In a letter to IPAD dated December 8, 2003, Mr. Musgjerd stated that he was in receipt of a letter from the Department of Revenue confirming that their investigation has been formally concluded. ) In a letter dated June 20, 2005, Commissioner Salomone responded to Mr. Musgjerd: I received your letter of June 5, 2005, requesting to inspect all records detailing the department's investigation. You are welcome to come to the Department to review the records whenever it is convenient for you during the time period of July 18-29, 2005. Please notify us as to what day and time will work best for you. We realize this is a month and a half from the date of your letter, however, the State Board of Equalization, as well as a physical remodeling within the Department that has physically displaced the Property Tax Division and their records, prevents us from having the records available before July 18. Mr. Musgjerd was unable to inspect the data during the timeframe Commissioner Salomone proposed. According to Mr. Musgjerd, he arranged an appointment with the Department for November 23, 2005, at which he was to be provided the opportunity to inspect all data regarding the Department of Revenue's investigation(s) into the assessing practices in the City of Greenwood. Mr. Musgjerd stated: [I]t is evident that all of their investigative material has still not been made available for inspection as statutes . . . stipulate. Moreover, it is evident from the data made available to me that their investigation has long since been concluded, as indicated in internal correspondence to the Office of the Governor. However, some of the documents made available clearly indicate that there are additional documents pertaining to their review of the assessment practices of the City of Greenwood Assessor that have not been provided for inspection (specifically those documenting the nature and depth of their own investigation). Accordingly, I have not been provided with information requested that relates to their criminal investigation (contrary to Minnesota Statutes). Moreover, they have still not provided me with the opportunity to inspect the records supporting the [sic] own investigation (and analysis of the violations) in the assessment practices of the City of Greenwood Assessor - which their internal communications state have occurred. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Sims wrote: We have identified some documents which were inadvertently omitted from the box of documents which Mr. Musgjerd inspected. These documents will be mailed to Mr. Musgjerd. Aside from those documents we do not know which additional documents Mr. Musgjerd refers to. [Staff] is in the process of contacting Mr. Musgjerd to determine which additional documents he refers to. Mr. Musgjerd also stated in his letter that we have not provided him with information relating to [our] 'criminal investigation.' The documents do not exist. We will inform Mr. Musgjerd that we did not do a criminal investigation. Finally, Mr. Musgjerd's letter states that '. . . they have still not provided me with the opportunity to inspect the records supporting the (sic) own investigation' into the assessment practices of the City of Greenwood Assessor. Again, we believe that we have now provided all of the documents which relate to our investigation and to which Mr. Musgjerd is entitled and we do not know which additional documents he refers to. The only information not provided was the names and addresses of complainants . . . [who] requested that information concerning their complaints be kept confidential because they feared physical or financial injury if their names and addresses were made public. This information was redacted . . . pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.37, subdivisions 1(a) and 2.
Issue:
Based on Mr. Musgjerd's request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Upon receipt of a request under Chapter 13 for access to government data, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist. In addition, section 13.03, subdivision 1, states that entities shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. According to Mr. Musgjerd, he first requested access to the data at issue in 2003. In its June 20, 2005, response to Mr. Musgjerd's June 5, 2005, request, the Department stated that it needed six weeks to provide him with access. The Department did not state that it needed that much time because of the size or complexity of his request, but said: the State Board of Equalization, as well as a physical remodeling within the Department that has physically displaced the Property Tax Division and their records, prevents us from having the records available before July 18. That response is neither prompt nor reasonable under the circumstances. Furthermore, as of the date of its response to the Commissioner, the Department had not provided Mr. Musgjerd with access to all of the data to which he was entitled, advised him of the statutory basis upon which it relied to deny him access to some of the data, or informed him that some of the data he requested do not exist. According to the Department, as of the date of its response to the Commissioner, it still needs to clarify with Mr. Musgjerd just what data he seeks. The Commissioner encourages both parties to make reasonable efforts to resolve disputes like this one. Both the Department and Mr. Musgjerd had obligations to seek clarification from one another as issues arose. Mr. Musgjerd could have sought the assistance of the Department's Responsible Authority or Data Practices Compliance Official; the Department should have contacted Mr. Musgjerd promptly as soon as it realized it needed clarification. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Musgjerd raised is as follows:
Signed:
Dana B. Badgerow
Dated: February 24, 2006 |
