06-007

Advisory Opinion 06-007

February 27, 2006; Hampton Township

Published February 27, 2006

Response to data requests

Opinion Brief AI-Generated

Background & Issues

A member of the public requested copies of plat plans, a local ordinance, and court-related records from Hampton Township. The township refused, arguing that it was not governed by the state's public records law. The Commissioner was asked to decide whether the township is subject to the law and required to comply with the data request.

Commissioner Decision

The Commissioner concluded that Hampton Township is not covered by the state's public records law. Therefore, the township was not obligated to comply with the request for 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.

Full Text of Advisory Opinion 06-007 Reproduced as published by the Minnesota Department of Administration · retrieved from mn.gov on August 21, 2026

Excerpted Ruling / Conclusion
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. McKenzie raised is as follows:

Hampton Township's determination that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is appropriate given the definition of political subdivision in section 13.02, subdivision 11.
Hampton Township is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Therefore, it was not obliged to comply with Chapter 13 in responding to a December 20, 2006, request for access to data.

Advisory Opinion 06-007

February 27, 2006; Hampton Township

2/27/2006 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 January 26, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated January 24, 2006, from James McKenzie. In his letter, Mr. McKenzie asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to data from Hampton Township.

IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Eunice Schiller, Clerk of Hampton Township, in response to Mr. McKenzie's request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 31, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. McKenzie's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Township's position. On February 10, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Peter Tiede, an attorney representing the Township.

A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. McKenzie is as follows. In a December 20, 2005, letter to Ms. Schiller, Mr. McKenzie asked to inspect certain data: plat plans, an ordinance, and data relating to a district court complaint/summons.

In a letter dated January 17, 2006, Mr. Tiede responded first by asserting that the Township is not subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Regarding the requested data, Mr. Tiede also wrote that the Township did not maintain any data beyond what it previously had provided to Mr. McKenzie.

Issues:

Based on Mr. McKenzie's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:

Is Hampton Township's determination that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, appropriate given the definition of political subdivision in section 13.02, subdivision 11?
If Hampton Township is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did it comply with Chapter 13 in responding to a December 20, 2006, request for access to data?

Discussion:

Issue 1:

Is Hampton Township's determination that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, appropriate given the definition of political subdivision in section 13.02, subdivision 11?

Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, applies to state agencies, political subdivisions, and statewide systems. In 2001, the Minnesota Legislature amended the definition of political subdivision to include certain townships: any town exercising powers under chapter 368 and located in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2.

In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Tiede wrote:

We believe it is clear that Hampton township is not a political subdivision under the definitions of Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes.

[Hampton Township] is located within the metropolitan area as defined, so the only question as to whether the town is a political subdivision is where the town is exercising powers under Chapter 368.

The powers under Chapter 368 which a town might exercise are found at section 368.01, the urban powers statute. Subdivision 1 of that statute provides urban town powers for towns which are located within twenty miles of the city hall of the [sic] city of the first class having over a 200,000 population. Hampton Township would not qualify under that section.

The second subdivision, Subd. 1A provides:

A town with a population of 1,000 or more that does not qualify under Subd. 1 shall have the enumerated powers upon an affirmative vote of its electors at the annual town meeting.

Subdivision 30 of that statute requires that notice be given to the auditor and the Secretary of State when the powers are assumed. Those notices are to be filed by the auditor and the Secretary of the State respectively.

So, for Hampton Township to be exercising powers under [Chapter 368] it would have to have had an elector approval and filings would have to be made with the Secretary of State and the county auditor. If those things were done, then Hampton Township would qualify as an urban town and be subject to [Chapter 13].

I am enclosing for you e-mail messages from the Dakota County Auditor and the Secretary of the State indicating that neither of them has any record of any filing by Hampton Township of assumption of those powers. I am enclosing for you a letter from the Town Clerk indicating, among other things, the results of her search of annual meeting minutes indicating that she was able to find no other elector authorization of assumption of urban town powers.

It is true that Hampton Township, like other towns in Dakota County (which does not do its own zoning, but rather leaves that entirely to the townships) exercises greater authority in certain areas than townships in other counties. Indeed, most of the powers available upon exercise of Chapter 368 powers are available to all towns in the county in one form or another under other statutes or special legislation such as was passed in 1977. However, none of that matters under the plain language of [Chapter 13]. The key question is whether Chapter 368 has been employed, and complied with, to exercise powers. [Emphasis provided.] It appears to us conclusive that Hampton Township has done nothing to exercise powers under Chapter 368. Therefore Hampton conclusively does not fall within the ambit of [Chapter 13].

Based on the analysis Mr. Tiede provided, the Commissioner agrees that Hampton Township is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.

Issue 2:

If Hampton Township is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did it comply with Chapter 13 in responding to a December 20, 2006, request for access to data?

As discussed in Issue 1, Hampton Township is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. Therefore, it is not obliged to comply with Chapter 13 in responding to data requests.

Opinion:

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

Hampton Township's determination that it is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is appropriate given the definition of political subdivision in section 13.02, subdivision 11.
Hampton Township is not subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Therefore, it was not obliged to comply with Chapter 13 in responding to a December 20, 2006, request for access to data.

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: February 27, 2006