Advisory Opinion 05-036

Note: Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, was further amended in 2008, after this opinion was issued. In the event that there is a conflict between the conclusion in the opinion and the statute, the later enacted statutory language governs.

Facts and Procedural History:

On October 11, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated October 6, 2005, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Northeaster newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the newspaper's right to gain access to certain data from the City of Minneapolis.

IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, the City's Data Practices Compliance Official, in response to Mr. Anfinson's request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 17, 2005, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On October 27, 2005, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Steiner.

A summary of the facts as provided by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:

A Northeaster reporter recently called the Minneapolis elections office to obtain contact information for city council candidates. However, she was informed that state law limited the disclosure of some this information, including the candidates' addresses. This struck my client as peculiar, because in the past contact information for council candidates (specifically including addresses and phone numbers) had always been public. Futhermore, this type of information - especially the street address - is important because candidates are of course required to live in the ward they propose to represent, verification of which requires access to their addresses.

Assistant City Attorney Jim Moore] explained that in the city's view, a 2005 amendment [Minnesota Statutes, section 13.601, subdivision 3] restricted the disclosure of contact information, including the addresses of candidates. The city attorney's office interpreted the new statute to mean that only the information about candidates specifically described in subdivision 3 is public; all other information is private. Indeed, Mr. Moore told my client that the city elections office was no longer collecting addresses from candidates when they filed for office.

Issue:

Based on Mr. Anfinson's request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:

Did the City of Minneapolis comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a data request for contact information about city council candidates?

---

Discussion:

Before proceeding, the Commissioner provides the following information. The 2005 Legislature enacted changes to provisions relating to data on individuals who are members of or applicants to advisory boards or commissions. Prior to August 1, 2005, certain data about these individuals were classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, personnel data. The effect of the changes enacted in the 2005 Session is that data about members of or applicants to advisory boards or commissions are classified by section 13.601 (data on elected and appointed officials), rather than section 13.43. The Legislature created a new subdivision, subdivision 3, under section 13.601, which became effective August 1, 2005. It states:

The following data on all applicants for election or appointment to a public body, including those subject to chapter 13D, are public: name, city of residence, education and training, employment history, volunteer work, awards and honors, and prior government service or experience.

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.

In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Moore cited section 13.601, subdivision 3, and wrote:

Notably, the candidate's or appointee's address is omitted from this list of public items in the statute. In responding to media requests, the City followed the plain language of the new statute, enacted in the 2005 legislative session. Indeed, in light of the new language, the City discontinued collection of address information from candidates for election. Unless candidates provided the City with the required Statement of Economic Interest form, the City itself obtained information from the State Voter Registration System if the City needed to contact the candidate. The City is, of course, required to both collect and disclose address information on the state-mandated Statement of Economic Interest, but stopped disclosing address information once it was determined that the address was not public regardless of how and where it was collected.

Given the new statutory language, the logical presumption is that the legislature intended to delineate only those specific terms relating to candidates for elected office and appointed boards as public. As such, the City would appreciate guidance as to how to interpret this new statutory provision. It is clear, given that other municipalities have responded differently, that reasonable minds can come to differing conclusions as to whether addresses of candidates are to be considered public or private [Emphasis provided.]

In his opinion request, Mr. Anfinson wrote:

We believe that the interpretation apparently adopted by Minneapolis is contrary to both the express terms of the new statute and the intention of the Legislature in adopting it. Under [Chapter 13], of course, it is well established that all government data are presumptively public unless expressly classified otherwise. Correspondingly, where Chapter 13 itemizes data in a particular category that must be publicly disclosed, the itemization does not automatically mean that the Legislature intended all other information in the category to be not public data, unless that intention is expressly stated.

The Commissioner agrees with Mr. Anfinson's analysis. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Section 13.601, subdivision 3, provides that certain data are public - essentially, restating the general presumption. This does not mean that all other data on applicants for election or appointment to a public body are not public. Given the operation of Chapter 13, if the Legislature intended for all other data on applicants for election/appointment to be not public, the Legislature needed to enact a provision so stating.

Thus, because there is no provision classifying contact information about city council candidates as private, they are public. If Minneapolis maintains the contact information, it is required to provide those data to the Northeaster.

---

Opinion:

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

Assuming the City of Minneapolis maintains the requested contact information about city council candidates, the City did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and promptly should provide the data to the Northeaster.

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: November 18, 2005

---