Advisory Opinion 05-030
October 4, 2005; Red River Watershed Management Board
Background & Issues
A member of the public asked the Red River Watershed Management Board to inspect its annual audits from the previous five years. Although the board claimed to have provided all requested materials, the requester discovered the audits were missing and received no response to a follow-up inquiry. The Commissioner was asked whether the board complied with state public records law in its response to the request.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner determined that the board failed to comply with state public records law when responding to the request to inspect the annual audits.
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 Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:
The Red River Watershed Management Board did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a September 20, 2004, request to inspect the annual audits for the past five years.
October 4, 2005; Red River Watershed Management Board
10/4/2005 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 August 29, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated August 25, 2005, from Jim Stengrim. In his letter, Mr. Stengrim asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data that the Red River Watershed Management Board maintains. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Naomi Erickson, the Board's Data Practices Compliance Official, in response to Mr. Stengrim's request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 2, 2005, were to inform her of Mr. Stengrim's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the Board's position. On September 16, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Louis Smith, an attorney representing the Board. A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Stengrim is as follows. In a letter dated September 20, 2004, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Ms. Erickson and asked to inspect various government data. Of relevance to this opinion is Item 3 of his request for, Past five years annual audits. In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, A meeting was scheduled for September 30, 2004 to inspect the requested data. Upon arriving for the meeting, the [Board] representatives handed [sic] a letter dated September 30, 2004, from Mr. Smith, their attorney. In the September 30, letter, Mr. Smith stated, In response to your request of September 20, all of the data referred to in Items 1-13 have been produced for your inspection. In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, Copies were made of the documents presented as annual audits. Since time was an issue a careful review of the documents was not conducted until later. It was discovered that they were not annual audits. In a letter dated December 2, 2004, Mr. Stengrim wrote to the Board, noting that the annual audits were not among the data made available to him on September 30. He again asked for the audits. In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote, As of the date of this letter, there has been no response from the [Board]. Mr. Stengrim provided to the Commissioner a copy of the September 20 and 30 letters, and a copy of the December 2 letter. Issue:Based on Mr. Stengrim's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to to address the following issue:
|