Laserfiche WebLink
From:John M. Kysylyczyn <br />To:Dan Roe <br />Cc:Pat Trudgeon; *RVCouncil <br />Subject:Morris Leatherman contract <br />Date:Friday, March 20, 2020 4:05:18 PM <br />Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. <br />Mayor, <br /> <br />I want to formally raise a concern in the contract with Morris Leatherman that will be before you on <br />Monday. <br /> <br />I want to highlight paragraph 15, starting with line 170. Also highlight Exhibit C. <br /> <br />Paragraph 15 states that the contractor shall comply with all laws, including the Minnesota Data <br />Practices Act, and that any violation by the consultant shall be a breach of contract and termination <br />of the agreement. <br /> <br />Exhibit C states in part, “City further understands and agrees that the names and addresses of <br />interviewers used by Consultant and the names and/or addresses of persons sampled are <br />confidential and will not be made available to City.” <br /> <br />For some background, this is an issue that I have been keeping my eye on concerning the business <br />practices of Morris Leatherman for several years. <br /> <br />Yesterday, I consulted with a member of the legislature’s data practices subcommittee about this <br />issue. <br /> <br />The statement in Exhibit C appears to be illegal and not supported by the Minnesota Data Practices <br />Act. First, the city has no legal authority to declare data to be confidential, only state law can <br />declare this. Second, there is nothing in the Act believed to make this information non-public. <br /> <br />Furthermore, I have concern about this claim that the consultant will not release information <br />without the written consent of the City. The law is clear that a requester can submit a request to the <br />consultant for data and the city has no legal authority to consent or not consent. The consultant <br />cannot delay a request due to a delay asked for by the city or some requirement of authorization by <br />letter. <br /> <br />In addition, the authorization that the consultant may release certain information is concerning. The <br />information cited is public information. The use of the word “may” appears to be in appropriate. If <br />a request is made, the data “shall” be released even over the objection of the consultant. <br /> <br />When applying Paragraph 15, this appears to constitute a breach of contract. <br /> <br /> <br />