MN
Data Practices Archive Minnesota Advisory Opinions
Not legal advice. This is an independent research archive, not affiliated with or endorsed by the State of Minnesota, the Department of Administration, or its Data Practices Office. Content here is for informational and educational purposes only — its creator is not an attorney, and no content has been reviewed by one. Always contact your own attorney before making a decision based on anything here. Full disclaimer · About this site · Report an issue
← Back to opinion list
← Opinion 06-002 Opinion 06-004 →
06-003

Advisory Opinion 06-003

February 10, 2006; Red River Water Management Board

Published February 10, 2006
Requests for data Response to data requests
Opinion Brief AI-Generated

Background & Issues

A member of the public asked to inspect financial records from the Red River Watershed Management Board showing payments made to a local watershed district for a specific project. After reviewing the provided documents showing a single payment, the requester believed additional payments had been made based on separate audit reports and questioned whether all records were disclosed. The Commissioner was asked to determine whether the Board complied with state public records law in responding to the inspection request.

Commissioner Decision

The Commissioner determined that the Board complied with state law in its response to the record inspection request.

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 06-003 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. Stengrim raised is as follows:

The Red River Watershed Management Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 29, 2005, request to inspect financial records showing payments to the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District for the Agassiz Valley Project.
Advisory Opinion 06-003

February 10, 2006; Red River Water Management Board

2/10/2006 10:15:43 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 5, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated December 31, 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 from the Red River Watershed Management Board (RRWMB).

IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Naomi Erickson, Administrator of RRWMB, in response to Mr. Stengrim's request. The purposes of this letter, dated January 11, 2006, were to inform her of Mr. Stengrim's request and to ask her to provide information or support for RRWMB's position. On January 24, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Ms. Erickson.

A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Stengrim is as follows. In a letter dated August 29, 2005, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Ms. Erickson and, among other items, asked to inspect financial records showing payments to the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District [MSTRWD] for the Agassiz Valley Project.

Louis Smith, an attorney representing the RRWMB, responded on September 23, 2005, stating, The RRWMB's complete file for the Agassiz Valley Water Management Project will be provided for your inspection. He offered several dates and times for Mr. Stengrim to choose among.

In a letter dated October 31, 2005, Mr. Stengrim wrote to Ms. Erickson regarding his October 24, 2005, inspection of the data:

Data produced for inspection was a letter dated November 16, 2004 from the MSTRWD signed by President Doug Sorenson requesting payment of $396,080.93. Also produced was a document titled Red River Watershed Management Board Disbursement Voucher . This document indicates that $396,080.93 was disbursed on November 17, 2004. The conclusion based on the data is that the RRWMB has only made payments of $396.080.93 to the MSTRWD for the Agassiz Project.

In a letter dated November 15, 2005, Ms. Erickson wrote to Mr. Stengrim, we produced the data you requested, which reflects a single payment made to the [MSTRWD] for the Agassiz Project in the amount of $396,080.93.

In his opinion request, Mr. Stengrim wrote:

In reviewing the annual audits of the [MSTRWD] for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 it appears that the RRWMB has given the MSTRWD almost $500,000 for the Agassiz Project. It is difficult to understand how the RRWMB claims a single payment was made when the annual audits reflect at least four payment have been made.

Mr. Stengrim provided a copy of the MSTRWD's Statement of Receipts and Disbursements and Changes in Fund Balance - Capital Project Funds - Construction - Modified Cash Basis for years 2001, 2002, and 2003.


Issue:

Based on Mr. Stengrim's opinion request, the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Did the Red River Watershed Management Board comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 29, 2005, request to inspect financial records showing payments to the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District for the Agassiz Valley Project?


Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, when a government entity receives a data request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable time. (See section 13.03, subdivision 2(a), and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300.) In responding, the entity must provide the data, advise that the data are classified such as to deny the requestor access, or inform the requestor that the data do not exist.

In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Erickson wrote:

The [RRWMB] has made a single payment to the [MSTRWD] for the Agassiz Project, on November 17, 2004 in the amount of $396,080.93. This information was provided to Mr. Stengrim at his request. In addition, the Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Work Group is an entity, separate from the [RRWMB], which receives funding directly from the Minnesota Legislature, appropriated to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The purpose of this Work Group is to facilitate implementation of the Mediation Agreement signed in December of 1998. The RRWMB acts as a fiscal agent to pass through these state funds as allocated and approved by the Work Group.

The RRWMB forwarded Work Group funding in 2001 to the [MSTRWD]. Work Group funding was disbursed to the District for preliminary engineering and for final engineering for the Agassiz Project. In addition to this direct funding for the Agassiz Project from the Work Group, the Work Group has authorized funding for the [MSTRWD] for more general project team alternative analysis and support costs. Some of these funds could have been used by the local watershed district for the Agassiz Project, but the Work Group and the RRWMB would have no way of recording such an allocation to the project by the District.

I wish to point out that all of the above information was provided to Mr. Stengrim. The annual financial reports of the RRWMB document these pass-through funding allocations from the Work Group to local watershed districts, and were provided to Mr. Stengrim. As you know, Mr. Stengrim also obtained annual reports and financial information from the [MSTRWD] that also provides this information. We feel at all times the RRWMB has endeavored to comply with [Chapter 13] to provide Mr. Stengrim with the data he has requested.

Mr. Stengrim asked to inspect financial records showing payments for the Agassiz Project made by the RRWMB to the MSTRWD. The RRWMB's response was to provide, for his inspection, a document indicating that $396,080.93 was disbursed on November 17, 2004. Ms. Erickson states the RRWMB has made a single payment to the MSTRWD. Therefore, it appears the RRWMB responded appropriately to Mr. Stengrim's data request.

The following additional comments are in order. If Mr. Stengrim was seeking information about expenditures from the RRWMB as fiscal agent for the Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Work Group, he needed to be more specific in his data request. Similarly, if Ms. Erickson suspected Mr. Stengrim was asking for data relating to the Work Group expenditures, she could have sought clarification.

Opinion:


Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Stengrim raised is as follows:
The Red River Watershed Management Board complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to an August 29, 2005, request to inspect financial records showing payments to the Middle Snake Tamarac Rivers Watershed District for the Agassiz Valley Project.

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: February 10, 2006