Advisory Opinion 04-043
June 28, 2004; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)
Background & Issues
A requester asked for copies of contracts from the Anoka-Hennepin School District by mail and fax, stating that the district failed to respond. The school district claimed it never received the original request, though it provided the documents once notified of the complaint. The requester asked whether the district complied with state public records laws regarding his request.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner concluded that because there was a factual dispute over whether the district ever received the request, it was impossible to determine whether the district complied with the law.
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:
Because there is a dispute regarding whether the District received the April 28, 2004, data request for copies of data, the Commissioner cannot determine whether Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.
June 28, 2004; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)
6/28/2004 10:17:43 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 June 2, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Kevin Pachl, in which he asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to data that Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin, maintains. In response to Mr. Pachl's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roger Giroux, the District's superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated June 7, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Pachl's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On June 18, 2004, IPAD received a response from Paul Cady, the District's legal counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a letter dated April 28, 2004, Mr. Pachl requested a copy of certain contracts. Mr. Pachl stated that he faxed and mailed his request to the District. According to Mr. Pachl, the District did not respond. In his opinion request, Mr. Pachl included, without comment, a copy of a fax auto activity report, dated May 12, 2004, that indicates a one-page fax was sent to telephone number 763.506.1003 on April 28, 2004. The Commissioner notes that he is unable to determine, with certainty, whether this document demonstrates that the District received Mr. Pachl's April 28, 2004, request. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote: For your information, and notwithstanding Mr. Pachl's submission verifying that faxes [sic] were delivered to the District, the District does not have the April 28, 2004 request for data which is the subject of this opinion request. Please be advised that on June 11, 2004, following receipt of the request for the instant opinion, the District promptly responded to the data request (enclosure). Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Upon request for access to public government data, the government entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner (see section 13.03, subdivision 2) and within a reasonable time (see Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) Mr. Cady states that the District does not have the April 28, 2004, data request. Mr. Pachl states that he faxed and mailed the request to the District on April 28, 2004. The Commissioner cannot resolve this dispute. If the District did receive the request either by fax or mail, and did not respond until June 11, 2004, its response was not timely. If the District did not receive the data request, it was not under any obligation to provide the data. The Commissioner notes, and concurs with, an additional comment from Mr. Cady: . . . as an alternative to the advisory opinion process, to the extent Mr. Pachl believes a request has not received a response, Mr. Pachl would be well served to attempt to resolve these matters directly with the District's responsible authority designees and/or its Data [Practices] Compliance Official. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Dated: June 28, 2004 |