Advisory Opinion 00-041
October 3, 2000; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Background & Issues
An individual submitted requests to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in October 1998 and June 2000 seeking access to conservation officer applicant data and data about themselves. After not receiving the records, the individual asked whether the department had responded appropriately to the data requests.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner determined that the government entity did not respond appropriately to the request for access to data.
Automated synopsis generated for quick reference only — it has not been reviewed word-for-word against the official record and is not legal advice. Always review the full opinion text below for the Commissioner's actual determination, or see the original document on mn.gov. Think this summary misstates the opinion? Report it.
Excerpted Ruling / ConclusionBased on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, School District 284, Wayzata, did not respond appropriately to a June 14, 2000, request for access to data.
October 3, 2000; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
10/3/2000 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 August 28, 2000, IPA received a letter dated August 24, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his/her access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources maintains. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Allen Garber, Commissioner of the DNR, in response to X's request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 30, 2000, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department's position. On September 8, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Kurt Ulrich, Assistant Commissioner for Administration, DNR. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated October 20, 1998, X requested access to certain Conservation Officer applicant data, and data about him/herself. In a letter dated June 7, 2000, X requested access to certain Conservation Officer applicant data, and data about him/herself. In X's opinion request, s/he wrote: The requests I have made have not been provided as of this date. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request for public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and appropriate manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, further provides that entities must respond within a reasonable time. Pursuant to section 13.04, when an individual makes a request for data of which s/he is the subject, entities are required to respond within ten working days. In the case of this opinion, X requested access to data of which s/he is the subject and public data of which s/he is not the subject. X made these requests in October of 1998 and on June 7, 2000. As of August 24, 2000, X asserted that s/he had not received any of the requested data. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Ulrich wrote: ...the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources would like to state that our lack of response to [X's] request of June 7, 2000, was simply an oversight on our part. The Department is not, and was not, intentionally withholding disclosure of public information to [X]. [X's] request was simply misplaced due to the workload of our Human Resource employees. We extend our sincere apologies to [X] for any inconvenience this may have caused. The Department is providing the requested data to [X] today. With respect to [X's] October 20, 1998, request, our records indicated that [X] was provided with the public information [X] requested. As discussed above, government entities are required to respond to requests for access to public data promptly, appropriately, and within a reasonable time. Further, when the requestor asks for data about him/herself, entities are required to respond within ten working days. Regarding X's June 7, 2000, request, Mr. Ulrich wrote that the DNR was providing X with the requested data on September 8, 2000 - three months after X's request - due to an oversight which the DNR regrets. Under applicable Minnesota statute, this response, nonetheless, was not timely. Regarding X's October 20, 1998, request, there is a dispute which the Commissioner cannot resolve. X asserts that he did not receive any data. Mr. Ulrich asserts that the DNR provided X with the data. If the Department did not provide X with the data to which s/he is entitled, it should do so immediately. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: October 3, 2000 |