Laserfiche WebLink
imposes costs on local taxpayers. Smaller <br />cities struggle with limited staff and <br />resources while larger cities struggle with <br />larger complex databases. The MGDPA <br />must balance the right of citizens to access <br />public data with the cost to municipalities of <br />complying with certain types of data <br />requests. <br />In 2014, the Legislature imposed additional <br />security requirements on political <br />subdivisions in an attempt to prevent <br />unauthorized individuals from accessing <br />private data. Adequate security measures are <br />important, but they make compliance with <br />the MGDPA more difficult and costly. <br />Although the Legislature has made <br />compliance with the MGDPA a priority, <br />funding for the Information and Policy <br />Analysis Division of the Department of <br />Administration (IPAD), the department <br />charged with overseeing the MGDPA, does <br />not reflect the increased need for local <br />government assistance. <br />Cities continue to receive repetitive, overly <br />broad and far-reaching data requests that <br />require significant staff time to locate <br />government records, redact private data or <br />data unrelated to the request, and assemble <br />documents to be provided in order to <br />comply with requirements to provide access <br />to public government data. In some <br />situations, as with overly broad data requests <br />related to "applicant" lists, staff time and <br />costs are significantly increased and not <br />recoverable for very limited public benefit. <br />The MGDPA also limits the ability of cities <br />to be reimbursed for responding to requests. <br />For example, cities are limited to charging <br />only 25-cents per page for copies of police <br />motor vehicle incident reports, which does <br />not cover the city cost for copying, while the <br />Commissioner of Public Safety is exempt <br />from this restriction —thereby permitting the <br />Department of Public Safety to continue to <br />charge $5 for incident reports that cities are <br />required to submit to the depaitinent. <br />Furthermore, the Official Records Act <br />requires government entities to "make and <br />preserve all records necessary to a full and <br />accurate knowledge of their official <br />activities." In accordance, cities must <br />establish a records retention schedule, and <br />maintain and destroy official records <br />according to this schedule. There are <br />rigorous requirements for any changes to a <br />city's records retention schedule, including <br />getting approval from the statutorily -created <br />Records Disposition Panel, which strikes an <br />appropriate balance between the government <br />entity's decision -making role in determining <br />retention and disposition of official records <br />with the public's right to know the <br />government entity's official activities. <br />Response: As the cost of complying with <br />the MGDPA increases, the League <br />supports: <br />a) Providing additional state funding to <br />assist political subdivisions with <br />meeting the increasing complexity of <br />managing government data. <br />b) Providing state funding for statewide <br />data practices training. <br />e) Allowing political subdivisions to <br />charge for the staff time that is <br />required to comply with wide-ranging <br />data requests regardless of whether <br />copies of the data are requested. <br />d) Providing a mechanism that would <br />permit cities to challenge whether a <br />data request is reasonable and made <br />in good faith. <br />e) Amending the MGDPA to limit what <br />is considered public applicant data to <br />better balance the value of public data <br />with the cost related to data practices <br />compliance. <br />f) Allowing political subdivisions to <br />charge the same amount for copies of <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2018 City Policies Page 93 <br />