Corridor residents get administrative hearing on transparency complaints
Residents who have criticized Steele County’s handling of public information about the East Side Corridor (ESC) project had their day in court last Friday, during a hearing held before Administrative Law Judge Christa L. Moseng at the Steele County Government Center.
The corridor group, headed by Matthew Sennott and Melissa Zimmerman, filed a data practices complaint in late May, alleging multiple violations of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA).
The ESC project proposes a north-south roadway on the east side of Owatonna from near the intersection of Bixby Road and 18th Street SE to Kenyon Road, with an extension of 26th Street NE, according to the Steele County website. The project is scheduled to begin construction in 2026.
After reviewing the residents’ complaint, the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings found there was probable cause to believe the county committed violations of the Data Practices act by charging a fee for inspection of public data in response to an Oct. 25, 2024, data request, and there was a failure to establish a procedure, consistent with the MGDPA, to ensure that all requests for government data are received and complied with in a appropriate and prompt manner.
At Friday’s hearing, Sennott and Zimmerman represented the complainants, and the county was represented by Mary Wahlquist and Margaret A. Skelton of Ratwik, Roszak and Maloney, P.A. in St. Paul.
Much of the Friday’s hearing focused on testimony from Steele County Administrator Renae Fry.
In opening statements, the complainants said that the issue was transparency and accountability in good faith. The group, Zimmerman said, has tried for more than three years to work with the county.
Because of difficulty in getting information, she said, the group filed the data requests. After filing the requests, she said, the group has been met with delays, denials and improper charges.
“We didn’t want to be here,” she said. “We just wanted open, honest communication about the refusal to engage the public in good faith.”
In their opening statement, the attorneys for the county said the hearing is not about the pros and cons of the project but whether the processing of the data was done properly.
“The county acted diligently and in good faith,” Wahlquist said. “Some (data) requested years of data.”
The county website, she said, has the procedures and processes for filing data requests, and during the time frame of the data requested, the responsible authorities had changed.
“The county has acted in good faith to comply,” she said. “It’s not always flawless.”
In response to the exhibits entered into the record and questions, Fry said she has been the county administrator for a year and a half, supervising 18 departments.
She explained when she received a data request, she had to determine who should respond or if she had access to the documents requested. Much of the data, she said, could only be retrieved from servers by the county IT employees. The IT department, she said, has four employees and one of those four is hired full-time to work with Minnesota Prairie County Alliance, the county’s human services provider.
In total, she said, the county has received 11 data requests from the group, and six of those have been completed or closed. Some must be referred to the county attorney to determine whether non-public data needs to be redacted.
During the time frame, Fry said, there had been numerous staff changes in the county, including the county attorney and county engineer.
The complainants also raised questions over meeting minutes for a City of Owatonna/Steele County Joint Transportation Committee, which officials said were unavailable. Fry said that the committee was established by Owatonna and not an official committee, but rather a means to bring people together to discuss transportation issues.
Testimony by Fry, and later by Sennott and Zimmerman, also addressed issues related to charges made for copies and whether or not the ESC representatives would be allowed to take photographs of the documents.
At first, Zimmerman said, they had been told that they could take photos of the documents, and there would be no charge. Later, they were told they could not take photos and charges would apply to any copies they made.
Zimmerman also said that on several occasions, the files available were not viewable on the computer made available to her and Sennott.
Sennott said when he was notified the first data requests were available, he was told he would be permitted to take photos of them. When he went to see them, he said, on Jan. 14, 2025, they were in a format he could not access. He was able to view them several days later, he said.
During their testimony, Zimmerman and Sennott both said they were told all communication needed to be only with Fry or County Attorney Robert Jarrett and not directly with department heads or the county board.
At the end of testimony on Friday both sides agreed that they preferred to submit written final arguments. Moseng agreed to the request and said that she was setting a deadline of 4:30 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 7, for submissions. After reviewing them, she will make her ruling.