Advisory Opinion 05-002
January 7, 2005; Rock County Auditor/Treasurer's Office
Background & Issues
A city administrator requested a copy of the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer's Office's written public data access procedures but was unable to obtain them. The county acknowledged that it had not adopted the required written documents, though it maintained that it followed data access rules in practice. The Commissioner was asked to determine whether the office was in compliance with state data practices law without having prepared these written procedures.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner decided that the office was not in compliance with state law because it had failed to prepare the required written procedures for public data access.
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 raised by Mr. LaFond is as follows:
The Rock County Auditor/Treasurer's Office's is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, because it has not prepared the public access procedures required pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 2(b).
January 7, 2005; Rock County Auditor/Treasurer's Office
1/7/2005 10:15:43 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 November 3, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Greg LaFond, City Administrator for the City of Luverne. IPAD required clarification from Mr. LaFond, which he provided on December 1, 2004. Mr. LaFond asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer's Office's response to a request for access to the County's written data practices procedures, as required under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(b). Mr. LaFond requested the same data from Rock County and the Rock County Sheriff's Department. The Commissioner addresses the issues involving the latter two entities in Advisory Opinions 05-001 and 05-003. In response to Mr. LaFond's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Gloria Rolfs, Rock County Auditor-Treasurer and responsible authority. The purposes of this letter, dated December 6, 2004, were to inform her of Mr. LaFond's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County Auditor-Treasurer's position. On December 21, 2004, IPAD received a response from Donald R. Klosterbuer, Rock County Attorney, on behalf of the County, the County Auditor-Treasurer's Office and the County Sheriff's Department. A summary of the facts follows. In his opinion request, Mr. LaFond stated that the City had attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a copy of the Rock County Auditor/Treasurer's Office's public data access procedures. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Klosterbuer stated that the County has consistently maintained a policy and practice of complying with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Mr. Klosterbuer described efforts the County has taken to comply with Chapter 13, both before and subsequent to Mr. LaFond's opinion request. He also stated: The County has not adopted any single source data practices policy and, in particular, has not specifically adopted the concise and specific written procedures apparently contemplated by Minnesota Statutes section13.03, subd.2. When the County first became aware in early November of the initial complaint filed by [Mr.] LaFond, [Mr.] Oldre contacted your office in regards to the same. . . . . Since that time, County administration has undertaken a concerted effort to bring the County into compliance with written requirements of the statute. . . . . More importantly, we would also indicate that the County has consistently complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 as relates [sic] to the provision of public data. I do not have any recollection of an instance where my office has been advised by any party of the County's failure to provide the data requested. Based on the same, it is our office's belief that the County, and all of its officials, have been in substantive compliance with the substantive provisions of Minnesota Statute [sic] Chapter 13 even if [the] County may not have been in technical compliance with the written requirements. While we certainly recognize that the 'written form requirements' of the statute have legitimate purposes, we do believe that substantive compliance with the intent of the law is perhaps paramount to 'technical concerns'. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. LaFond asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
|