MINNESOTA STRAW BAN PROPOSAL SAYS "SUCK IT" TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

This past week Senate File 756 was introduced in the Minnesota State Senate which makes the unrequested distribution of plastic straws by places of accomodation a petty misdemeanor. The passage of this legislation would be a significant affront to the rights of Minnesotans living with Disabilities.

Over the past few years, the environmentalist lobby has made a lot of progress with accomplishments such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Now, they are faced with the current political climate and the current occupant of the white house and are continuing to take matters into their own hands and advocate for cutting pollution like plastic waste, but thier ignoring the unintended consequences of doing so including in regards to Plastic Straw bans which in part came about due to a viral video of a Sea turtle that was injured by one.

While, protecting our natural resources is important the people who are advancing straw bans are severely misguided. In their shortsighted rush to ban plastic straws, they have missed two critical facts.

First, according to a study published in Marine Policy, straws account for less than 0.03 percent by weight of plastic pollution entering the oceans every year, so the straw ban is symbolic at best.

Secondly, it's a quality of life issue for individuals with disablities. Able-bodied people see straws as ubiquitous and they don't think about how essential these simple devices are for anyone with a disability. Without straws, it's impossible for millions of disabled people to go anywhere without worrying being able to drink, become dehydrated, spilling their drink everywhere or aspirating it into their lungs. Individuals with Autism also expirience oral sensory problems that often are allievated by the use of a straw.

Where able-bodied people see waste, my community sees a simple device that opens up the world to people with disabilities.

Proponents of the bans will suggest that we use alternatives to plastic straws, such as paper, metal, glass or biodegradable straws, but all of those options have major drawbacks for people with disabilities. For example, metal straws are unusable for people with tremors or sensory issues. Paper straws do not work because they often disintegrate before an individual can finish and they don't handle heat well. Straws made of sugarcane are problematic for diabetics.

Others have suggested that we carry around straws, instead of getting them from resteraunts but that has problems of its own because it's another expense for disabled people, who are already likely to have to suffer lower income and extremely high medical costs. Futhermore, there's no way for those straws to be kept sanitary.

The Authors argue that the bill language doesn't actually explicitly ban straws but it and that one can request a straw or establishments can use any sort of other straw but buisness owners aren't going to buy paper straws for some people and plastic straws for others. Thier going to get one or the other because of the economic advantages. If plastic straws are more heavily regulated which one do you think they're going to buy? I recently saw this scenario play out in a discussion with Pizza Luce over straws. 

The burden of reducing plastic waste by a measly 0.03 percent should not fall on disabled people, who already face barriers to participating in the daily activities in their prospective communities. Yes, we should reduce pollution, but it is unethical to force already marginalized groups to pay the price. We need to search for alternative enviromentally friendly solutions because blanket plastic straw bans are irresponsible, unneccesary, unreasonable and immoral.

Considering Marriage Equality for the Disability community

 was sitting at the American Legion the other day and I overheard 2 older gentleman discussing how many funerals they had been too in the past year and I complained about how many weddings I had been to. The older gentleman chuckled and informed me there's really not a whole lot of difference between the 2.

While I clearly have very little interest in being burdened with long term commitments.Others do. I had somebody talk to me the other day about how their child has a disability and wants to get married and in all reality their kid really can't get married because even though The SCOTUS ruling that legalized marriage for those in the LGBT community has brought the issue of marriage equality to the forefront, the issue of people with disabilities and the right to marry without being penalized is just now bubbling to the surface.

Unfortunately, the issue of why people with disabilities are sometimes penalized if they get married is fairly complex. It does not affect every person with a disability but it does affect a significant chunk as it pertains to Supplemental Security Income ( SSI).

SSI is a needs-based federal program that helps people with disabilities (as well as people who are elderly) who have little or no income. It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. If two people receiving SSI get married, they will receive 25% less in benefits than they did as two individuals. The theory is that a couple can live on less income together than they would as individuals. In addition, even if a couple doesn't get legally married, they can be considered to be "holding out" if they are presenting themselves as a couple by SSI definition; for them, the same rules apply as for a married couple and they will have their benefits reduced. If only one person in the couple is receiving SSI, the benefit will still be reduced or they may no longer be eligible for it. In addition, there is also a resource limit; the amount of money you can have in the bank for an individual is $2,000 and for a couple it is only $3,000. Beyond these marriage-related SSI benefit and asset restrictions, eligibility for SSI in most states means eligibility for Medicaid. Medicaid covers services not covered by other health insurance plans such as a personal care aid, certain durable medical equipment, medications, and transportation to medical appointments. So anything affecting SSI eligibility may have a ripple effect.

The issue of marriage equality for the disability community is not a new one. It is heavily intertwined with the eugenics movement where people with disabilities were labeled as "undesirables" and forcibly held down and sterilized against their will, but also prohibited from marrying. In Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kansas, Minnesota, and Michigan, people with intellectual disabilities, mental disabilities, and epilepsy were prevented from marrying due to a series of laws that were passed in the early 20th century. Other states used legislation prohibiting anyone they considered to have a “genetic defect” from marrying. To this day, while in some instances the law is unenforced, most of these laws have never been repealed.

Removing the laws from the books has been argued against, because some members of the government seem to believe that it is protecting people with disabilities who they deem as, “unable to make their own decisions.” The people affected usually have intellectual disabilities, severe physical disabilities, or they lack the ability to communicate in a ‘typical’ way such as through vocalization. However, these laws are just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to the government’s interference in deciding whether people with disabilities are able to marry or not.

I think it goes well beyond legalities and the mumbo jumbo of sensational legal verbiage as it establishes that a right to marry is contingent on a system of classism, which already seeks to keep many people with disabilities living in poverty. The Disability community faces an unemployment rate of over 80%, and while some of that is heavily embedded in workplace discrimination, a large part of it has to do with the idea that people with disabilities must rely on the government for their most basic of needs.

Living with a disability is incredibly expensive, This is why so many people with disabilities rely on programs such as SSI, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, Section 8, Welfare, and food stamps. Those who qualify for these services are often caught in a catch-22. To pay the exorbitant cost of living with a disability, they need the programs that help us to pay the additional expenses. However, to remain on these programs they essentially have to remain living in poverty. For many, removing themselves from these programs is a matter of life and death.

When a person with a disability gets married, the government expects them to become the responsibility of their partner. The SSDI program is specifically for the adult children of people with a significant work history who have paid into the system. Usually, DAC (the Disabled Adult Children program) is awarded when a parent dies or retires. The entire program is embedded in the idea that the adult child is the burden of their parents. If the person were to marry, they are automatically kicked off the program because they are then expected to become the burden of their partner, unless they themselves also have a disability.

For those with non-disabled partners, the rules of such a program unfairly put pressure on said partner to not only care for their disabled spouse physically, but also monetarily. I know I have already said that having a disability is not cheap. However, unless a partner is quite wealthy there is just no way that they would be able to support their disabled partner if the services they were receiving were paying for the many expensive things people with disabilities require…things like equipment, home health care, and even medication.

When people with disabilities have to choose between their basic necessities and marriage, it is not like its all that much of an option

This particular philosophy also gives credence to the misconception that people with disabilities can not have relationships, are unable to freely express themselves.

This is emphasized by the fact that Social Security can make the determination that a couple is living as if they are married, and cut services like SSI and SSDI, whether there is a legal marriage or not. It can be incredibly dangerous for couples to live together when at least one person has a disability, and that person receives benefits, for this very reason.

Many arguments have been made stating that everyone loses access to programs like SSI, Food Stamps, and section 8 if they get married. With those arguments comes the idea that those people living with disabilities are just looking for a handout. Most people experience disability at some point in their lives. When those that become disabled later in life, or those who are older Americans and have similar needs to those who have disabilities, have to consider getting divorced simply to get needed healthcare and financial services, there is a problem with this system.

Imagining if some of the newly married LGBT or interracial couples had to get divorced in a few years for this very reason, places this entire issue into perspective.

It sounds harsh and unrealistic but. Yet, it is an all too real scenario for those who develop illnesses or impairments later in life.

People with disabilities need access to services. The exorbitant cost of living with a disability makes it impossible to turn those services down. SSI, Medicaid, SSDI/Medicare, Section 8, Food Stamps, and welfare are impacted, and typically lost, if the person on these programs gets married.

Marriage offers many benefits that are not available to single individuals. One of the most important, having your partner with you at the hospital is often denied to people with disabilities, even when a partner has power of attorney, there is a living will, or even with other papers attempting to denote the relationship status. Marriage universally protects couples and families and the fact that these protections are in many ways nonexistent when it comes to couples in which one or both individuals have a disability actually is fairly bothersome as at the end of the day, the issue really transcends race,gender, orientation, culture, etc. It can affect anyone with a disability, and maybe it might not be affecting a person right now. However, if their disability progresses, this may become an issue they face, and they may have to end up getting divorced. I know many people who have had disabilities progress or have acquired a disability later.

It can also affect Senior Citizens as they require more care, some of them have had no choice but to divorce their partners, if they want to remain in their home and in their comunities and marriage is not an option if they need services.

Peter Ivy, Chaska PD and thier pussy riot

Last month, after reading about it on a friend's social media page, I decided to watch the documentary Pussy Riot: A Punk Prayer.

 It outlines the story of three women from the Russian punk group, Pussy Riot. In 2012, the women were sentenced to two years in prison labor camps for wearing colorful masks and crashing a Russian Orthodox service at a Cathedral in Moscow. Their actions strongly resounded with  anti-Putin rhetoric , going so far as to ask the Virgin Mary to drive him out and criticizing the unholy alliance that is the union between the Orthodox Church and Putin's regime.  Naturally, the actions of the dames shocked the faithful in attendance and enraged government officials.

The judge handed down a "lenient" sentence of two years in a prison labor camp for what, in the U.S, we would characterize as Constitutionally-protected free speech and expression, although here in the not overly intellectual, ultra-conservative bible thumping  Carver County,  the disruption of a church service could be construed as misdemeanor disorderly conduct, but most would dismiss the intrusion as overzealous youthful rebellion and the First Amendment would have protected the content of the performance.

Many are  familiar with the squabble between myself, Carver County and the City of Chaska over the way people with disabilties are treated at the municipal and County levels. Its been reported on in both local paper and statewide papers, widely publicized by myself on both my blog and social media activity. The striking thing about this debacle is not even Judge Eric Braaten and Chief Deputy County Attorney Peter Ivy threatening to jail me for writing satire or the legal challenge pending in Federal Court regarding the City of Chaska's  government sponsored censorship of critics; rather, it is the demonstration of why abstract principles like free speech and the rule of law are critically important in our lived reality. 

The first ammendment dispute has shined a spotlight onto the inner workings of the Chaska Police Department, a fairly non transparent department of local government concerned mostly with public safety. I am sure it is at times Its an important and sometimes thankless job. However, it has become painfully obvious,  that City, County and Department leadership are quite upset at the fact that I have had the audacity to not only  competently challenge thier actions but also that I've  done so in my typical style of intellectual, biting satire. This included such gems as the Grandma got run over by a reinder spoof  "Christmas Carols with seargant Douche-zan" as well as my regular blog and social media posts.

At a recent hearing in Carver County district court, the County Attorney's office went so far as to call my comments " innaccurate" and proceeded to ask Judge Braaten to issue an order that would constitute prior restraint and threaten to have me arrested should I dare to hurt Chaska PD's feelings.

As Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in the Supreme Courts opinion in United States V Alvarez.

"The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth."

Carver County and the City of Chaska have had over a year to issue a rebuttal to any allegations I have made and they failed to do so. Instead they attempted to utilize an unrelated   court hearing with limited public attendence. The fact of the matter is they wont engage in public discourse because they can't prove anything I have said to be false. So they resort to backroom bully tactics to shut down dissidence.

While were on the topic of false allegations, the Chaska Police Department has also falsly accused me of violating thier social media policy but if you review thier social media policy, it clearly states that Chaska PD can remove comments if they fall under certain criteria, which are ambiguous enough to raise constituitional questions in and of themselves but of even greater intrigue is the fact that thier policy states that they can only block people who aren't using thier real name but I am using my legal name so the issue isnt that that I am violating thier social media policy the issue is that they arent following thier own policies and that I am using my artistic talents to effectively raise awareness about a government bureaucracy that is arguably overstepping its power. I  have merely cited relevant portions of law, applied public pressure, and in some circumstances state oversight to ensure my constituional rights are respected.

 I have a right to Free speech. I have a right to due process and to seek meaningful redress in the United States District Court, should I lose in District Court I have the right to appeal to the 8th circuit court of appeals and the United States Supreme Court. Should I ultimately lose, I can seek to change the laws and regulations with which I disagree. 

If only officials at the City of Chaska and at Carver County were so effectively mindful of their duties and the limits on their power. In the end, the City of Chaska and the County must respect my Constitutional rights by allowing me a full and fair opportunity to be heard, which thus far I have been denied. The County and the City can not retaliate against me. It can not seek criminal action or civil penalties because they are being satirized. To do so is blatantly unconstituitional

Much to the annoyance of Peter Ivy and the Chaska Police Department this is not Putin's Russia, and it must grin and bear its own Pussy Riot, because the rule of law remains, and they have been put on notice

Making Transportation work for everybody

The Importance of a quality transportation system can not be overstated.Our highway system, railroads and airports are essential to economic growth and development and also to the simplistic purpose of moving people from place to place. As the general election approaches, it is important that we foster an effictive dialogue with our public officials regarding the under represented issue of transportation and those being left behind by the current system, particularly those with disabilities.

While, over a third of the country simply hails a car through a transportation network company (TNC) such as Uber with the push of a button to travel quickly and at minimal cost, many members of the disability community are stuck the position of having to schedule rides days or even weeks in advance with little to no assurance of punctuality and a high cost if they require paratransit services.
While we need to continue to move forward by finding innovative solutions that address transportation disaprities, we shouldn't settle for solutions that are leaving people behind.. As it stands the vehicles of transportation network company nd accommodating vehicles are not available and Paratransit is expensive and hard to plan for. Partnerships with TNCs are probably not ideal long term answer but the technology and existing systems can be used in development of more sustainable answers .

State and Localities basically have two viable options in providing ride share services to individuals with disabilities that meet accessibility regulations and are available via smart phone.
The First choice is simply to develop regulations that mandate a certain percentage of a TNCs vehicle fleet meet federal accessibility standards
The second is for the state to leverage technologies similar to those used by Uber and Lyft to to provide a comparable option
While TNCs and taxi companies differ in business structure, they both provide the same type of on-demand service from point A-to-point B
Many taxi companies have even rolled out GPS tracking to keep up with competition from companies like Lyft. Thier Vehicles are also much more likely to be accessible.
This kind of competition also provides an opportunity for state and local government agencies to benefit off of the technology developed and deployed by TNCs to provide service to people with disabilities .
It is the 21st Century and now is the optimal time for public agencies to implement a smartphone app tracking and payment system coupled with on-demand service. The technology is already developed, and it is abundantly evident that there is a need for the service.
Agencies could roll out the service in pieces, beginning with the ability to track your ride online, which would eliminate the long wait times associated with paratransit services
Naturally developing and providing this type of service will come at a cost.
Most TNCs subsidize thier trips to keep rides cheap enough to balance the need to maintain a solid customer base , while paying drivers enough to maintain a large fleet. These subsidies come straight out of the pockets of private companies.
Each ride on public transit agency paratransit is subsidized by tax dollars, adding cost to the population as a whole.
Even with the public subsidies, paratransit rides cost more than the typical bus fare.
Public agencies would be able to fill more vehicles to higher capacity with carpooling models. By utilizing the existing fleet more efficiently they can provide faster service, thus improving service quality.
Extra seats in vehicles could also be used to pick up carpool customers who do not require accessible vehicles, but who are traveling along similar routes.
We live in an era of innovation where we have the potential to change systems and find real solutions to transportation disparotes but before we move forward, we need to stop and contemplate how we are going to use modern day technology to improve access to transportation options
TNCs are a very plausible option with real-time information and mobile ride hailing and payment options, and that there is a demand for them. But effective policy is inclusive of everyone and its time to include the disability community be given a seat at the table in the development of such policies

Adding Insult to Injury

"Mr. McCourt is all over social media in photos with state officials so he clearly he can't be all that Autistic"...

This was the type of logic being used in comments made by Chief Deputy Carver County Attorney Peter Ivy this morning as I sat in a sentencing hearing this morning for a charge of "assaulting" a cop over the altercation I had with Chaska Police Department last October while I was having an Autistic meltdown. One of the officers got a "reddened knee" from tackling me over help I didn't want or ask for in the first place.

During the hearing Chaska Police Department, discussed the fact that I am damaging their reputation by questioning them and criticizing their protocol via social media and I am basically unrepentant. 

One of the reasons people find Chaska PD's actions questionable is the more they tried to make the case that they understood Autism, the more they looked like they didn't. For Example, if you watch the video footage of the altercation. I am engaging in repetitive hand motion called "stimming. " It is basically universal sign of an individual with Autism who is overstimulated. I am stimming through the entire incident. 

Thus despite the fact they never bothered to test BAC and 2 chemical dependency assessments to the contrary, the Carver county Attorney's office continued to perpetuate their version that I was intoxicated and belligerent and that I am " not really all that Autistic"...

And thus I sat there more out of a desire to tolerate the kangaroo court so I could commence with the various civil actions I intended to bring and less out of any genuine feelings of remorse or guilt.

But this was not the first time I had to deal with discrimination on the basis that I am what's often called "high functioning" and its certainly not the first time  people have said "you dont really look all that autistic,” so what do people with Autism like? 

To begin with I am autistic: My official diagnosis is Asperger’s, or what is now Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). 

ASD is a piece of who I am. I think differently,  feel differently, respond differently. 

I have a distinct need for routine.  If you look at my calendar on my phone. I schedule everything to the minute and I get very frazzled if it changes, particularly if it is a last minute change . As a kid if my parents took a different way home in the car, I would melt down or get very anxious because it was "out of the ordinary"

I am hyper -sensitive.  Certain sensations really bother me but I am weird about pressure. As a kid I calmed down with bear hugs and my parents got memberships to water massage parlors.

I also struggled with motor skills.If I jumped I couldn't land on my feet.  I couldn't ride a bike until I was a teenager because my muscles and coordination didn't always work all that great.  

Years of social skills training have made me capable of holding conversations but I have always retained the stereotypical bluntness of those with an Autism diagnosis

I also perseverate. Even as an Adult, My mom and dad have had to come to my house periodically because I obsess over things to the point where I legitimately just shut down and can't function  Basically I get into a rut and couldn't get out of it. They have to help me change my thinking patterns to get out of it. 

Other common traits of Autism include a lack of eye contact,  and defaulting to literal interpretation. Autism exhibits itself differently in everybody and the common traits are not always immediately evident. 

But the question "Is he actually autistic, ” has always been problematic for me. People ask it as  if I look  too “normal,” too not-autistic to actually be autistic and that I have to  prove, with my physical appearance, that I  am what I say I am.  

I’ve always had a desire to connect with  other people but  I’ve always known I was different because my parents told me I had Autism at a very early age. I was about 7 or 8 I think but knowing I was different made me angry. I wanted to be normal, I didn't really like being told I had to do something differently than other people. 

By the time I entered high school, I had created a new "Noah McCourt" at home I was a social butterfly at School I rarely spoke a word to anybody. People remember me as being silent. I didn't really get my peers so rather than attempting to build relationships and face rejection, I basically avoided having any so people would never realize any abnormalities

The perspective I have on the world us uniquely my own and in many ways are  informed  by the fact I have Autism , whether it "looks like I am Autistic "or not. 

Ultimately, there was a point in my life that I would have been probably been thrilled with the Carver County Attorneys 's comments this morning as he was essentially commenting on my ability to mirror the social norms of others and mask the fact I have Autism  but I came to realize several years ago that all the attempts to make myself "more acceptable" "more likable" "more normal" to others left me in a really  dark place.

I think in many ways those of who are considered to have high functioning Autism have it just as difficult than those who exhibit signs of classical autism as my mom pointed out the other day:

"As a kid people saw the disability they didn't see the intellect behind the disability,  now people see the intellect and they don't see the disability and the significant challenges that still exist behind the intellect."

Or As one advocate put it "So called Mild Autism doesn't mean one experiences Autism mildly, it means you experience their Autism mildly. You may never know how hard they have worked to get where they are "

St. Augustine in his book "Confessions" wrote "Do I measure and know not what I measure." While he was speaking in the context of early philosophical thought, the comment brings perspective to the way we as a society approach the development of outcomes in health policy, including the significant and yet underecognized health disaprities that exist for Americans living with disabilities. 
 

The World Health Orginization recently conducted a study and found that people with cognitive disabilities are 5 times more likely to have diabetes than the general population and also that they are recieving less adequate management care.
 

They are also less likely to receive routine dental care, which raises serious concerns not only due to the impact on oral health, but also in regards to the role teeth and gums play a role in preventing cardiovascular problems
 

A recent study conducted by the National Institute on Health revealed that Americans living with mental illness die 15-30 years earlier those without mental illness 

Many will look at the above statement and assume that people with mental health problems die to causes such as suicide and overdoses but the data shows that they're  more likely to of the same conditions as anyone else such as cancer or heart disease.
 

Individuals living with Developmental Disabilities such as Autism or Down Syndrome also face a variety of different challenges such as transportation and staffing limitations.  Access to medical care services was raised as a concern for individuals with developmental disabilities in the 2002 Surgeon General’s report.
 

Even at the State level, if one examines the reports and studies conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health, ranging from last year's Strategic plan to the 2013 report on oral healthcare to the 2012 report on chronic disease, they will find as I have that individuals with disabilities are largely absent as a data group if they're even mentioned at all.
 

After a decade of fragmenting and turning Healthcare into an overly partisan  buisness,  it is probably not suprising that our current system is failing to provide quality care for those who need it most. 
 

 I would strongly encourage our incoming Gubenatorial Administration, state legislature and agency leaders to take meaningful action to address the disparities in access to healthcare facing the disability community. I would suggest starting with adding the phrase disability to the appropriate stas and developing outcomes for improvement over the next 5-10 years.

It's a small task but its certainly a step in the right direction.

Les incompétents

I thought it worth noting that Carver County is continuing to willfully and deliberately violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 

I submitted a request on March 14 2018 for :

 

" Any and all correspondence, documents, letters, electronic messages, memoranda, social media communications, telephone messages and any other forms of data which include the name Noah McCourt. "

Although the results of data request to the City of Chaska revealed that Mr. Hemze read the request and forwarded it to the County Attorney shortly thereafter and despite Chief deputy Poison Petey  patting himself on the back over the fact that he "routinely offers opinions on the MGDPA" they failed to respond accordingly.

 

State Statute 13.04 clearly states that:

"The responsible authority or designee shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible....."

 

Carver county failed to acknowledge that they had received the data request for over a month following it's submission.

This provision of statute isn't shrouded in ambiguity. It's pretty black and white that the County had 10 days to respond to me and failed to do so and if that isn't bad enough there are numerous other violations of the Minnesota Data Practices Act ( Minn. Stat. chapter 13)

A. CARVER COUNTY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH 10 DAY REQUIREMENT FOR DATA SUBJECTS IN MINN. STAT 13.04

Minnesota Statute 13.04 states that when an individual requesting data is the subject of the data ..

"The responsible authority or designee shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible....."

Carver County's response came over a month following the initial request.

The Commissioner of Administration opined in Data Practices Advisory opinion 18--005 that:

"notwithstanding the attorney conduct concerns, the County’s obligation under the Data Practices Act to comply immediately or in ten business day with a data subject’s request was clear. "

The Commissioner has also previously opined that the existence of litigation between a data requester and an entity does not relieve the entity of its data practices responsibilities. See Advisory Opinions 96-038 and 97-005.)

As the Commissioner noted in Advisory Opinion 03-030:

"The Commissioner acknowledges that circumstances can arise that make it more difficult for government entities to fulfill their duties under Chapter 13. Nevertheless, the District was obligated, per section 13.04, subdivision 3, to provide X with access to the data requested within ten working days. The statute does not provide additional time for mitigating circumstances."

Despite the existence of these clearly established procedures, the county ignore them and failed to provide data requested by a data subject as stated in Minn. Stat. 13.04

B. CARVER COUNTY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH APPROPRIATENESS AND TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS IN MINN STAT 13.03 SUBDIV 2(a)

The Minnesota Government Data Practice Act requires that responsible authorities:

"establish procedures....to ensure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner" Minn Stat. 13.03 subdiv 2 (a). Furthermore the responsible authority "shall establish procedures to provide for response to a request for access within a reasonable time" Minn R. 1205.0300 subp.3 as such government entities are obligated to know what type of data they have, how to access it and how it is classified BEFORE a request is submitted pursuant to the MGDPA (Minn Stat chapter 13)

Carver County's response was neither appropriate nor prompt. As an initial matter, their first substantive response came over a month after the initial request was submitted.

The County then cited that the request was burdensome and cited Minnesota Attorney Rule of ethics, while refusing to provide me with any updates on what steps they were taking to provide the data he requested. Even once they began complying with the MGDPA, they failed to fully respond

The commissioner of Administration has opined that while the statutory language of "appropriate and timely manner" is not defined as a distinct amount of time.

For the first month I received no response and thus I had no indication as to how much data my request would result in. However an appropriate and timely response is required even for broad and vague requests.

The commissioner of administration has opined in opinion 97-055 regarding a requester seeking data on 209 government employees

" given the extent of the request it would be appropriate to communicate that it would take some time to compile the data and to give an approximation of when the requestor will be able to have access. Instead [the entity]...has not responded for 4 weeks and not provided the requestor with access in more than 7 weeks after the receipt of the request. The commissioner is of the opinion that this is neither prompt nor reasonable "

I expressed a desire to inspect the data in a timely manner, a concept affirmed by the state Legislature in their passage of the MGDPA and repeatedly addressed in the opinions of the commissioner

Carver County has established a pattern of delayed compliance and communication, the ignoring of communication, a refusal to disclose its activities in regards to the request and a failure to provide statutory citations justifying redactions.

C. CARVER COUNTY HAS FAILED TO KEEP RECORDS CONTAINING GOVERNMENT DATA IN SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT AND CONDITION TO MAKE THEM EASILY ACCESSIBLE FOR CONVENIENT USE AS REQUIRED BY MINN STAT. 13.03 subdiv 1

The MGDPA provides that responsible authorities must "keep records containing public data in such an arrangement and condition to make them easily accessible for convenient use" Minn Stat 13.03 subdiv 1

 The County's indication that what should be a standard email search using standard text keyword criterion would take the installation of entire new programs and ultimately manually printing 3000 documents indicates that the County isn't in compliance with this aspect of the law.

In advisory opinion 94-032, the commissioner of Administration opined that the "easily accessible for convenient use" statutory language "

"places an affirmative duty on government agencies to design data storage, data retrieval, records storage and filings systems in such a way that will assist not hinder the public in accessing government data. "

The commissioner also noted that this language has been "part of a legislatively enacted policy in this state since 1941" he continued on to say that

" virtually every modern record keeping or information management system both manual and electronic that has come into existence in this state in the past 50 years has been subject to the requirement that they be designed and implemented to contain data within them that will be "easily accessible for convenient use" by the public "

A data request to the City of Chaska revealed correspondence between Chief deputy Carver County Attorney Peter Ivy from the City of Chaska in which Attorney Ivy stated that the County was installing new software to better respond to data requests

In advisory opinion 00-067, the commissioner opined that a state agency was not in compliance with the MGDPA when technical limitations impeded compliance.

"The data requestor having to wait months for a new server to be ordered, delivered and installed so that a back up tape can be reviewed is not keeping records in a way that makes them easily accessible for convenient use. Agencies need to proactively prepare their computer systems so that they are able to respond to data requested including review of back up tapes. Waiting for a data request and then determining that data isn't responsive to statutory authority " the Commissioner went on "It would be appropriate at this point that the tape be sent to a vendor for review, the data requestor should not have to wait any longer.[The Government entity]....should have acted more promptly in reviewing the back up tapes thereby meeting the requirement to produce public data "as soon as reasonably possible"

In advisory opinion 03-025, another Minnesota county presented the argument that "Due to limitations of the present computer equipment [complying with a data request]...is a time consuming and laborious process which typically results in computer crashes or printer jams. "

 

The Commissioner opined that the entity was not in compliance with the MGDPA because the data was not easily accessible for convenient use, as required by statute. Like Respondents, this agency then claimed the burden of the data request was interfering with County business. The Commissioner countered that claim by stating that “providing the public with appropriate access to public government data . . . is County business” (emphasis added).

C. CARVER COUNTY HAS STILL NOT RESPONDED TO MCCOURTS REQUEST FOR DATA IN VIOLATION OF MINN STAT 13.03 subdiv 3

Minn. Stat. 13.03, subd. 3 establishes that :

“Upon request to a responsible authority or designer a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and places and upon request shall be informed of the data's meaning."

The foregoing facts establish that the County has failed to comply with my request for access to data thus violating MINN STAT 13.03 subdiv 3

D. CARVER COUNTY FAILED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION AND STATUTORY CITATIONS FOR ITS REDACTIONS VIOlATES MINN STAT. 13.03 subdiv 3

After asking numerous times including in the original request submitted March 14 2018, Carver County did not provide written certification or statutory citation for its redactions, and did not disclose if any other data was withheld

Over 24 weeks after the original data request , the county still has not provided any statutory citations to justify any of their redactions or fulfilled the data request.

E. CARVER COUNTY'S ENTIRE PROCESS FOR RESPONDING TO DATA REQUESTS FAILS TO MEET STATUTORY REQUIREMENT

The Minnesota Supreme Court decided in Webster V Hennepin County that Hennepin County and Sheriff Rich Stanek violated the MN data practices act simply due to the facts that their process for handling data requests was ineffective. The court citing as justification for its ruling that there was

”substantial evidence of the County's missteps in responding to Webster's request lead inexorably to the conclusion that the existing procedures were insufficient to meet the statutory requirements

F. CARVER COUNTY's ACCESS POLICY VIOLATES MINN STAT 13.025

State statute 13.025 outlines the duties of the responsible authority. Chief Deputy Peter Ivy failed to perform his duties as the County's responsible authority which resulted in numerous violations of the MGDPA.

The commissioner of administration opined in Advisory opinion 18--005 that:

"The County’s current access policy for data subjects identifies the Chief Deputy County Attorney as the Responsible Authority for offices not otherwise designated by statute. Thus, given the Chief Deputy’s prosecutorial responsibilities, it seems likely that situations similar to this one will arise in the future. The Commissioner encourages the County to revisit its access policies and procedures so that any issues related to representation or apparent conflicts of interest do not interfere with the statutory time limits for responding to requests. "

 

 

In short, Poison Petey's sanctimonious ramblings and specious arguments are laughable and are indicative of the larger problem of incompetence and bumbling buffoonery that is becoming more and more of an expectation of the Carver county Attorney's office. I particularly enjoy his self aggrandizing claim that he routinely offers opinions on the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. I don't know what law school he went to and I don't really care but if I were him I'd stop looking at my own reflection for a sec, put down the mirror and call them up and ask  for a refund.