To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
February 6, 2007; Red River Watershed Management Board
2/6/2007 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 December 18, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated December 14, 2006, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data from the Red River Watershed Management Board. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Naomi Erickson, the Board's data practices compliance official, in response to Mr. Stengrim's request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 22, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. Stengrim's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board's position. On January 5, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ms. Erickson. A summary of the facts as Mr. Stengrim provided them is as follows. In a letter dated October 13, 2006, Mr. Stengrim wrote to the Board:
The following public data is now requested.
In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, There has been no attempt by the [Board] to respond to the request.
Issue:
Based on Mr. Stengrim's opinion 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.) In responding, 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. As part of her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Erickson attached the District's January 5, 2007, response to Mr. Stengrim's October request. In her letter to Mr. Stengrim she wrote: . . . Enclosed is a copy of the adopted loan guidelines of the [Board]. We have reviewed [Board] history concerning loan requests prior to January 1, 2006, and have determined that there have been no loan requests from member watershed districts per se; there have been several cases in which member watershed districts have received an advance payment of committed project funding. Our attorney, as well as the attorney for the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District, has advised that the loan provided for the Agassiz Valley Water Management project to that watershed district was authorized under Minnesota Statutes and other applicable law. Our attorney has also advised that the appropriate response to Items 3 and 4 of your data request is to refer you to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D and the [Board's] bylaws, which have been previously provided to you. There are no other documents or data in our possession on this subject. I am not authorized to provide you legal opinions in response to your requests for data under [Chapter 13]. As discussed above, government entities must respond to data requests promptly and appropriately. Regarding Mr. Stengrim's part of the October 13 request for the loan guidelines, in her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Erickson wrote, The amendment to the funding procedures identified in our response was the subject of deliberation at the November and December 2006 meetings of the [Board]; delay in action on this amendment lead to delay in our response to Mr. Stengrim. Mr. Stegrim made his request in a letter dated October 13, 2006. Given that the Board apparently did not communicate with Mr. Stengrim on this matter until January 5, 2007, the Board's response was not timely. The Commissioner is unable to determine if the Board provided all data response to this part of Mr. Stengrim's request. Regarding Mr. Stengrim's part of the October 13 request for prior loan requests, Ms. Erickson did not provide any information explaining why it took the Board approximately 12 weeks to inform Mr. Stengrim that no data existed regarding his request. This is not a timely response. Regarding the third and fourth items Mr. Stengrim requested on October 13, it appears they technically are not requests for data, but rather are questions. As such, they are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 and the District can choose to respond or not. (It appears the Board did refer Mr. Stengrim to Chapter 103D and the Board's bylaws - although it is not clear if he was provided copies of both.) If Mr. Stengrim had asked for copies of all data that document the Board's powers to make loans, the Board then would have been required to respond as required by Chapter 13, and provide any data it maintains that are responsive to the request. The Commissioner notes it is possible that some of the responsive data might include attorney client information that is protected by section 13.393. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:
Signed:
Dana B. Badgerow
Dated: February 6, 2007 |
