Advisory Opinion 98-052
December 4, 1998; Clay County
Background & Issues
A newspaper requested a copy of a letter sent by the Clay County Sheriff to the chair of the county board of commissioners, but the county refused to release it. The newspaper asked whether the county violated state public records law by denying access to the correspondence.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner decided that if the sheriff wrote the letter in his official capacity as part of his work, the record is presumed public and the newspaper's rights were violated. However, if the sheriff wrote the letter solely as a private individual, the county acted properly in withholding it.
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. Johnson is as follows:
The Forum's rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 were not violated when access to the September 24, 1998, letter was denied if the Clay County Sheriff wrote the letter to the Chair of the Clay County Board of Commissioners as an individual, rather than in his capacity as the Sheriff. However, if the Sheriff wrote the letter in his capacity as the Sheriff as part his work, the data are presumed public and The Forum's rights were violated.
December 4, 1998; Clay County
12/4/1998 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:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On October 15, 1998, IPA received a letter dated October 12, 1998, from Steven Johnson, an attorney representing the publisher of The Forum newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Johnson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper's access to data maintained by Clay County. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Vijay Sethi, Clay County Coordinator, in response to Mr. Johnson's request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 22, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Johnson's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County's position. On November 2, 1998, IPA received comments, dated November 2 from Ann Goering, an attorney representing the County. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated September 24, 1998, Mr. Johnson requested access to a copy of a letter [Clay County] Sheriff Larry Costello sent to [Chair of the Clay County Board of Commissioners] John Evert, presumably sometime during the past month. In her response to Mr. Johnson's request, Ms. Goering argued that the data in the letter are not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.33, elected officials/correspondence. In the Commissioner's October 22, 1998, letter to Mr. Sethi, she advised him that in analyzing the issue at hand, it would be helpful for her to review the letter. The County did not provide a copy of the letter to the Commissioner.
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Johnson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see Section 13.06). Chapter 13 provides a classification other than public for correspondence between individuals and elected officials; however, as the Commissioner has previously opined, this not public classification applies only if the correspondence in question is between members of the public and elected officials. (See Advisory Opinions 97-002 and 97-014.) Section 13.33 states:
In his opinion request, Mr. Johnson described the letter. He wrote:
He asserted that because the apparent purpose of Section 13.33 is to protect only correspondence between private citizens and elected officials, the letter in question is public.
In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering disputed Mr. Johnson's position. She wrote:
As discussed in the Facts section, the Commissioner asked to inspect the letter in question to determine whether or not the Sheriff wrote it in his work capacity. In fact, if, as Mr. Johnson intimated, the letter was written on Clay County Sheriff letterhead, it seems the burden would be on the Sheriff to explain why the content of the letter was not work related. However, the County did not provide the letter. The Commissioner's comments are therefore limited to the following: if Sheriff Costello wrote the letter as an individual, rather than in his capacity as the Clay County Sheriff, the data can be classified as not public under Section 13.33; but, if Sheriff Costello wrote the letter in his capacity as the Sheriff as part of his work, the data are presumed public unless classified otherwise by statute or federal law.
An additional comment is in order. In Ms. Goering's response to Mr. Johnson's request to the County for access to the letter, she asserted:
Section 13.072 , subdivision 2, states in relevant part, A [government entity] or person that acts in conformity with a written opinion of the commissioner is not liable for compensatory or exemplary damages or awards of attorneys fees under section 13.08 or for a penalty under section 13.09. The Commissioner disagrees with Ms. Goering; had the Legislature intended for the liability protection to extend only to those entities relying on opinions in which they were involved, Section 13.072 would have so stated. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Johnson is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: December 4, 1998 |