Advisory Opinion 04-007

Facts and Procedural History:

On January 9, 2004, IPAD received a letter from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding X's right to gain access to data from Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin.

In response to X's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated January 14, 2004, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On January 30, 2004, IPAD received a response, dated January 28, 2004, from Paul Cady, District Legal Counsel.

A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter to the District dated November 16, 2003, X wrote:

I am asking you to maintain a standing request to immediately send me copies of any and all ISD 11's legal bills concerning [X's child], on any issue that may arise regarding them that would necessitate the district incurring legal costs...I am asking that the district provide these bills as soon as it obtains them even if they have not been processed for payment yet.

In a letter dated December 27, 2003, X again wrote to the District: Please note that on 11-16-03 I sent you a 'standing request.' It appears that you are out of compliance with [Chapter 13]?

In a letter dated January 6, 2004, the District wrote to X:

For your information, neither [Chapter 13] nor District policies and procedures recognize a standing request for data. Accordingly, you need to continue to submit specific requests for data. Enclosed please find the most recent copies of legal bills concerning your [child].

Issue:

In X's request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, must Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, honor a standing request for government data?

---

Discussion:

The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in Advisory Opinion 96-047:

The question, however, raised by Mr. Anfinson is whether Chapter 13 imposes upon government entities a duty to respond to standing requests for data. While Chapter 13 does not explicitly address the issue of standing requests for access to data, it does set forth quite clearly the obligations imposed upon a request to a responsible authority. (See Sections 13.03, subdivision 3, and 13.04, subdivision 3.) Based on the broadness of this language, it is the Commissioner's opinion that a standing request is similar to a singular request, regardless of whether it arrives, for example, in person, by mail, by fax, or by telephone, and regardless of whether a person makes a standing request or chooses to make her/his requests one at a time.

Therefore, based on the language in Section 13.03, government entities are required to follow the requirements set forth in Sections 13.03, subdivision 3, and 13.04, subdivision 3, in responding to standing requests for access to government data. However, in the instance of a standing request, it is reasonable for a government entity to require that there be periodic verification that the requestor is still interested in gaining access to the data.

In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady acknowledged the existence of 96-047 and suggested it conflicted with Advisory Opinion 03-030. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. The issue in 03-030 was whether it was appropriate for a school district to deny access to data relating to yearbook transactions on the basis that the person handling such types of data was out of town. The Commissioner wrote:

...Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request.

Mr. Cady wrote:

...standing requests encourage government entities to rely on a single individual's duties and responsibilities to maintain a tickler file for responses. In the event that individual is absent [sic] creates the potential for a response to slip through the cracks. Although additional administrative safeguard procedures may be contemplated to avoid such situations, it is not necessarily a reasonable or realistic expectation....

The Commissioner's position on standing requests has not changed; he still believes the language in sections 13.03 and 13.04 supports the conclusion that entities must respond to such requests. In addition, in situations where an entity generates certain data on a regular basis, if a requestor cannot make a standing request, the entity sets up a situation in which the requestor must guess at when the data might become available. This would seem to frustrate Chapter 13's spirit of access to and openness of government data.

In the case of X's request, s/he is requesting data of which X or X's child is the subject. Therefore, upon either receiving or creating data responsive to the standing request, the District has ten working days to comply. However, the Commissioner reminds his readers that as he discussed in 03-030, if individual A is in charge of handling the standing request, the District needs to have procedures in place for someone else to take over if A is unable to respond to the request, e.g., if A becomes ill or takes an extended vacation. In addition, as the Commissioner stated in 96-047, it is reasonable for the District to require X to verify periodically that s/he wishes to continue obtaining the data.

The Commissioner offers a final comment. It seems a standing request makes the most fiscal sense for both the government entity and the citizen. For the government entity, responding to a standing request means dealing with a single data request communication, maintaining and referencing some kind of tickler file, and providing the data. Not honoring a standing request forces the citizen to generate and the government entity to process multiple requests for data.

---

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, must honor a standing request for government data.

Signed:

Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner

Dated: February 27, 2004

---