Facts and Procedural History:

Mark Krampf asked for an advisory opinion regarding certain data the University of Minnesota maintains. Susan McKinney, responsible authority for the University, submitted comments. 

According to Mr. Krampf, on February 17, 2018, he submitted a request to the University for public personnel data about three University employees. Most of the data Mr. Krampf requested are listed in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), such as gross pension, value & nature of any fringe benefits, final disposition of any disciplinary action, work location, badge number, etc.

Mr. Krampf stated to the Commissioner that as of April 18, 2018, the University had not provided him with the data. 

Issue:

Discussion:

Pursuant to section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from a requester 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, an entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such that the requester cannot have access, or inform the requester that the data do not exist.

Also, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, “[t]he responsible authority in every government entity shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use.”

In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has stated that a prompt, reasonable response is relative to the volume of data requested. (See Advisory Opinions 13-003, 06-014, 05-015, 04-027, 97-005, 95-006.) Here, Mr. Krampf asked for public data on three employees. 

In her comments, Ms. McKinney wrote, “[t]he information Mr. Krampf has requested was provided to him on May 2, 2018.  Additional information based on an email from Mr. Krampf on May 16, 2018 was provided to him on May 21, 2018.”   

Given the facts of this specific data request, including the type and amount of data requested, the University’s response to Mr. Krampf was not timely. 

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:

The University of Minnesota did not respond appropriately to a February 17, 2018, data request.

Signed:

Matthew Massman
Commissioner

Dated: May 23, 2018