To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
December 12, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)
12/12/2000 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:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On October 24, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin. In response to X's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated October 26, 2000, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On November 15, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. X's minor child, Y, is a student in the District. In a letter to the District dated October 10, 2000, X requested copies of all itemized attorney bills relating to [Y] which I have not yet received. . . . In a letter dated October 18, 2000, DeAnn LaValle, District Human Resources Manager, responded: [f]or your information, the District has now received the attorney bills for both the month of August as well as the month of September 2000. However, the bills are still being reviewed for approval within the District. Upon final approval, I will forward copies to you responsive to your request. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote: [i]t is reasonable that the District informed [X] that it would make copies available following its necessary internal review process for approval and payment of the bills. Accordingly, it is the position of the District that it responded appropriately to the request. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7, government data are all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. According to section 13.04, subdivision 3, the responsible authority shall provide copies of private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. X requested copies of data relating to X's minor child, Y. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, individual includes the parent of a minor child. Accordingly, X may exercise Y's rights under section 13.04 to gain access to data about Y. Mr. Cady stated that the District would provide the requested data to X following its necessary internal review process for approval and payment of the bills. However, given the definition of government data cited above, the attorney bills are government data upon creation or receipt by the District, not subsequent to or contingent upon its review of the data. Accordingly, the District was obligated to provide X with copies of the attorney bills upon receipt of X's request. If the District is concerned that following its review, the data may be amended, it may mark the data as unapproved or otherwise indicate that the data are subject to correction, but it may not deny X access to the data while it conducts its review. The Commissioner addressed a similar issue, involving draft or preliminary city council meeting minutes, in Advisory Opinion 94-026: The preliminary minutes of a meeting of a public body, like the park board of a city, are created by the secretary or other person assigned that task by the body. As they are data in some physical form, that is created by an agent of a government entity, they are government data for purposes of Chapter 13. The Commissioner is not aware of any Minnesota statute or federal law that classifies preliminary notes of a meeting as anything other than public data. These notes fall within the presumption of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that all government data are presumed to be public. Often government entities are reluctant to release items like preliminary minutes because a review of the minutes of a previous meeting by participants at the next public meeting may reveal some inaccuracy in the minutes that will be corrected by amendment. However, this reasonable concern should not be handled by denying the public access to the preliminary minutes. The reasonable concern for accuracy can be handled by stamping or marking the preliminary minutes with appropriate notations to the effect that they are preliminary, are not final and have not yet been reviewed by the body for possible correction and amendment. Although the data at issue in that opinion were public, the underlying principle holds here. Accordingly, the District erred in withholding the attorney bills until it had conducted its internal review. The unapproved bills are subject to disclosure to X pursuant to the requirements of section 13.04. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: December 12, 2000 |
