HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.j. Appointing Responsible Authority for City Data ,* � CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECLITIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MAY 3, 1994
AGENDA ITEM: ADOPT RESOLUTION FOR AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
APPOnVTMENT OF RESPONSIBLE AUTHORTTY FOR
CTTY DATA
PREPARED BY: SUSAN WALSH AGENDA
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ��� � ,�1,
ATTACHMENTS: RESOLUTION, OPINION APPROVED BY:
� _
Attached for city council review is the opinion issued from the Department of Administration in
answer to a complaint received from Iarry Wa1sh who felt the city wasn't providing him with the
information he requested. To summarize the four page document, the city needs to appoint a person
to be responsible for all its records and to adopt a data practices policy. The attached resolution
appoints me as the responsible authority. I am putting together a data practices policy which will be
provided to the city council at a future date.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY FOR CTTY DATA
.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1994 -
A RESOLUTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY FOR CITY DATA
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 13A2, Subdivision 16, as amended, requires that
the City of Rosemount appoint one person as the Responsible Authority to administer
the requirements for collection, storage use and dissemination of data on individuals,
within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemount City Council shares concern expressed by the legislature on
the responsible use of all City data and wishes to satisfy this concern by appointing an
administratively qualified Responsible Authority as required under the statute.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount
appoints Susan M. Walsh as the Responsible Authority for the purposes of ineeting all
requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02 through 13.87, as amended, and with
rules as lawfully promulgated by the Cammissioner of Administration.
ADOP1'ED this 3rd day of May, 1994.
E. B. McMenomy, Mayor
A'I'I'EST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
, t
STATE UF MINNESOTA
Department of
Administration ,
.�sl�-.. . . . .
:�����,�°-� Apri122 1994
qO1L��,D(�pQ. .
•�].-' )
•rn�
� :��
V:e - __ ( ��.�•�:- . . . �
� - �:•
�r��%�'}.....hjd ..,�
��ul;,'�m,�Y=•�.
Mr. L,arry Wa1sh
3050 L 147th Street
0°""'S"°": Rosemount, MN 55068
To improve[he qualii�•
and productivity
of Minneso[a Te� *�—. W�h:
govemment. JJ lYll
Enclosed, please find the Commissioner's Opinion that you requested
concerning the City of Rosemount's compliance with provisions of the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act that you requested in your
March 20, 1994 letter to the Department of Admi.nistration.
If you have a.ny questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
,
� :b�-��.� ���:�m...��..�,� . �
�
� �
Donald A. Gemberling
Director
dag/llm
Enclosure
c: Ron Wasmund
J. Michael Miles
cr.�s�noc.�eirw�oe�corrs�Ros�oxr�tww2xqailx
Public Inj'ormatiorc Polu,y�lnalysir Divi.siori
320 Centennial Buildin� 658 Cedar Stree� St. Pau� MN 55155
Yoic� (612)296-6733 T7Y/7DD: (6I2) 282-5599 Far (612) 296-5800
Department of Administration
. . � OPI1vION� � . . . � �. . . . .
This is an opi.nion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to authority
vested in her by Laws of Minnesota, 1993, Chapter 192, section 38. This opinion is
based on the facts and i.nformation available to the Commissioner as described below.
All correspondence and other information relied on by the Commissioner in issuing this
opinion is on file in the office of the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA)
of the Department.
Facts and Prncedural History:
On March 22, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration received a letter from Mr.
Larry Walsh, a resident of Rosemount, Mi.nnesota: In this letter Mr. Walsh described
attempts by him to gain access to data maintained by the City of Rosemount pertaini.ng
to actions taken by the City to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter "MGDPA." Mr. Walsh provided
copies of the written requests he had made to the City of Rosemount, hereinafter
"Rosemount."
On December 12, 1993, Mr. Walsh asked Rosemount who was the city's responsible
authority from 1990-1993. On January 26, 1994, Mr. Wa1sh asked that the city provide
him with a copy of the public document described in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05
that would identify the responsible authority for the city. He also asked for ". . . any
materials describing specific procedures set by the city for accessing government data."
After descn'bing the history of those requests, Mr. Walsh sta.ted that Rosemount had not
provided him with information identifying the responsible authority and had not cleariy
identified the procedures to be followed to access data maintained by Rosemount Mr.
Walsh then asked that the Commissioner of Administration (Commissioner) issue a.n
opi.nion on the issue described in the section labeled "issue" below.
In response to Mr. Walsh's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr.
Ron Wasmund, Rosemount's interim cir� ad�ninistrator. The purposes o€this letter,
dated Mazch 28, 1994, were to i.nform Mr. Wasmund of Mr. Walsh's request for an
opinion, to ask Mr. Wasmund or the city's attorney to provide information concerning
the issue raised and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required
to issue this opinion,
1
On Apr� 8, 1994, PIPA wrote to Mr. Walsh to explain to him the twenty day period for
. ,issuing an opinion in this matter would be extended. The reasons given included the .
demands of the legislative session aad the fact that no response had been r.eceived from .
Rosemount Subsequently, there were discussions with Rosemount and its attorney and
on April 13, 1994, by facsimile tra.nsmission, M�ce M1es, the attorney for Rosemount,
presented a letter of response.
In his letter, Mr. Miles explai.ned that he had di.scussed the issue ra.ised by Mr. Wa1sh
with his client Based on those discussions, it was Mr. Miles' understanding that
Rosemount had for many years empowered its city administrator to serve as the city's `
responsible authority. Some years ago, after Rosemount hired its first city clerk, that
position was designated as the official to serve as responsible authority and to receive
and ha.ndle requests far data. either personally or through delegations to others. Mr.
Miles did not make any other comments about specific public access procedures
established by Rosemount.
Issue:
In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Walsh asked the Commissioner to address the
following issue:
Is the City of Rosemount in compliance with the provisions of the MGDPA
- regardi.ng the appointment of a responsible authority and the development and �
implementa.tion of procedures for access to government data by the public?
Discnssion:
When the legislature first bega.n formuiating the public policies that have now evolved
into the full blown MGDPA, there was a recognition that policy objectives concern.i.ng
the regulation of government data could not be attained unless there was a clear
identification of who, within ea.ch government entity subject to the MGDPA, wouid be
responsble for the entit�s compliance with the MGDPA. The concept of the �
"responsible authority" evolved out of this discussion. Within the MGDPA, the
responsi'ble�authority is given the assignment of maldng the decisions a.nd tal�ng actions
to establish the policy and procedure fra.mework for an entity's compliance with the
MGDPA: After establishing the framework, the responsible authority then works with
personnel of the entity and with citizens on a.n ongoi.ng basis to assure compliance. (See
Minnesota Session La.ws 1974, Chapter 479 and Minnesota Staxutes Sections 13.03, 13.05
and 13.08.)
In this particular instance, Mr. Walsh has come to understand that the MGDPA requires
that he make his requests for access to data held by Rosemount to the responsible
authority for the city. To be able to do that, Rosemount must be able to tell him who
functions as its responsible authority. For some reason they have chosen not to do sa
2
This appears to be the case even though the attomey for Rosemount indicates in his
� . letter_to PIPA that the responsble.authority has been either the city admnnistrator or the. .
city clerk. . . . �
In the case of a city, the actuat designation of the responsble authority takes pla.ce when
a city council, by resolution, appoints the responsi`ble authority for the city. {Minnesota.
Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 16.) So that the public can ascerta.in the actual
identity of the individual appointed, the MGDPA requires the responsible authority to
prepare a document contai.ning the name, title and address of the responsible authority.
(Minnesota Statutes Section 13.45, subdivision 1.) The requirement that this docament
be prepared has been a part of the MGDPA since 1975. (Minnesota. Session Laws 1975,
Chapter 401, section 2.) Begirming on August 1, 1977, the MGDPA required public
entities to annually update this document, (Section 13.05, subdivision 1.) In one of his
requests to Rosemount, Mr. Walsh specifically cited to Section 13.05, subdivision 1 and
. asked for a copy of the Rosemount "public document" It was not provided to him
Rules promulgated by the Department of Administration in 1981 were, among other
things, intended to assist government entities in complying with the responsible authority
appointment process and public document preparation. In addition to legal rules dealing
with those topics, the Department of Administration also provided model advisory forms
for resolutions to appoint a responsible authority and to produce the pubiic document
required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1. (See Min.nesota Agency Rules, Chapter 1205
and its Appendix.) �
The iiest evidence that Rosemount could offer to Mr. Walsh, as to its complia.nce with
the provisions of the MGDPA regarding the appointment of a responsible authority,
would be copies of all appointment resolutions acted upon by the Rosemount City
Council and of the public document required by Section 13.05, subdivision 1. Although
Mr. Miles has identified the city clerk and city admi.nistrator as Rosemount's responsible
authorities over the years, copies of appointment resolutions and the public document
would demonstrate clearly that Rosemount has actually done what the MGDPA requires
it to do in appointing a responsible authority and identifyi.ng that responsible authority to
the public.
An important fealure of the MGDPA is its provisions that deal with public access to
government data. in his attempts to get access to data, at Rosemount, Mr. Walsh also
asked the city to provide him with information about its procedures regarding how
citizens get access to public data. maintai.ned by the city. Mr. Walsh states that
Rosemount has not provided him with copies of those procedures or any information
about them. In his comments, Mr. Miles states that Rosemount has directed its city
clerk and admi.nistrator to deal with public requests for access to data. However, he
provided no further detail. ,
3
� j
After stating the presumption that all government datal aze presumed to be public, the
.legislature went on to require that the responsble authority in eve.ry entity subject to the _
MGDPA ". . . shall establish procedures, consistent with this chapter, to insure that � �
requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and
prompt manner." (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2.) Although the
MGDPA does not necessarily require that these procedures be in writing, it would be
difficult for a government entity to properiy deal with the public access requirement and
all the detail associated with it, if the entity did not prepare the public access procedures
in writing. In addition, members of the public would have a difficult time in gaining
access to public da.ta. because they would not laiow, on an ongoing basis, just exactly
what makes up the detailed guidance of the unwritten procedures. For those reasons,
agencies are strongly encouraged by PIPA and associations of government entities, like
the League of Minnesota Cities, to have written procedures.
The problems that Mr. Wa1sh has encountered in g ''�, access to government data at
the City of Rosemount are a good illustration of the problem. (See the Commissioner's
previous opinion concerning Mr. WaLsh's requests for access to da�a at Rosemount issued
March 7, 1994.) He has asked for certa.in. government data. He has not received a
reply from the city. He has no way to know if the reasons for which he is not being
provided the data he is seeki.ng are in the format of his request, to whom he is directing
his request or some other problem. Without access to the actual procedures Rosemount
has established to direct its personnel on how to comply with requests for access to
� public, citizens like Mr. Walsh cannot fully exercise the rig�t of public access conferred
on them by the MGDPA.
Although Rosemount, through its attorney, indicates it has assigned responsibility for '
handling requests made under Section 13.03 to its city clerk, it has not provided what
Mr. Walsh asked for on January 26, 1994. Specifically, he asked for any materials
describing the specific procedures set by Rosemount for accessing government data. The
best evidence Rosemount can offer about its procedures is a copy of those procedures
themselves. They have not been provided to Mr. Walsh and they were not provided as
part of Rosemount's comments on Mr. Walsh's request for an opinion, Rosemount
should either provide Mr. Walsh with a copy of its procedures, explai.n to hi.m in detail
how he gains access to public government data maintained by the city or acknowiedge
that procedures do not exist.
Opinion:
Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue ra.ised by Mr.
Walsh is as follows:
It is my opinion that the City of Rosemount does not appear to be in compliance with
the provisions of the MGDPA that require the appointment of a responsible authority
and identification of that responsibie authority to the public. h is my further opinion
4
.
that the City of Rosemount does not appear to be in compliance with the provisions of '
the MGDPA that require the establishment of procedures to ensure that public gains
prompt and appropriate access to public government data. maintained by Rosemount
. � . � . . . : _ . � . . . � . • :
;
Sigaed: �
�
Debra Rae Anderson
Commissioner
Dated: �
5