Advisory Opinion 02-020
May 13, 2002; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)
Background & Issues
An individual submitted a public data request to a school district for behavior plan documents, but the district failed to reply because it confused the submission with a similar request sent on the same date. The requester followed up several weeks later, prompting the district to apologize and provide the records. The Commissioner was asked to determine whether the school district responded appropriately to the original data request.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner decided that the school district did not respond appropriately because it failed to provide the data for six weeks until the requester sent a reminder. However, the Commissioner acknowledged that the district's confusion was understandable given the two similar requests submitted at the same time.
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. Pachl is as follows:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, did not respond appropriately to a February 11, 2002, request for access to public government data, because it did not respond at all for six weeks, and responded only after the requestor repeated his request. However, given that two separate requests for similar data were dated the same day, the resulting confusion was understandable.
May 13, 2002; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)
5/13/2002 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:On April 15, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin. In response to Mr. Pachl's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated April 17, 2002, were to inform him of Mr. Pachl's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On May 1, 2002, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a letter dated February 11, 2002, Mr. Pachl requested: Any and all district documentation regarding the writing of Conditional Behavior Plans and Behavior Intervention Plans for the last three years. The District did not respond. In a letter dated March 30, 2002, Mr. Pachl again submitted his request, noting that he had received no response to the first one. The District responded to Mr. Pachl in a letter dated April 8, 2002: We have received your second request, dated March 30, 2002, to you [sic] letter of February 11, 2002. In double checking our records we found that we received two requests from you with that date that were very similar. I answered one of these requests but not the second. I do apologize for the misunderstanding and have included the information you have requested at no charge due to that error. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady stated that the District received two letters from Mr. Pachl, dated February 11, 2002, in which he requested access to data. In the request that is not the subject of this opinion, Mr. Pachl asked for:
Anoka-Hennepin's Training Plan for Behavioral Techniques that's been used for the last three years.
Mr. Cady commented: [d]ue to the similarity of the requests, in two separate letters with the same date, the district inadvertently believed it had responded to the February 11, 2002 data request. Upon Mr. Pachl's clarification to the district that he had not received a response to the second letter dated February 11, 2002, the district responded promptly within a reasonable time.
Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2, when an individual requests public data of which s/he is not the subject, government entities are required to respond in a prompt and reasonable manner. Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300, provides further guidance stating that entities must respond within a reasonable time. Although the Legislature did not define reasonable time, the Commissioner has stated in many previous opinions that it is relative to the amount of data requested. Here, the District did not respond at all to Mr. Pachl's first request. When he repeated his request some six weeks later, and noted that he had not received a response to his first request, the District responded one week later by providing the data. According to Mr. Cady, the District's oversight was due to the similarity of the data requested in two letters bearing the same date. Given those two factors, this kind of oversight is understandable. Nonetheless, the District has an obligation to respond promptly and reasonably to all requests for access to public government data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: May 13, 2002 |