Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records Data Requests topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells Winona County Board she has 36 open data requests, urges formal policy on response timing
Summary
A resident, Chastity Saraki, told the Winona County Board she has 36 pending data requests — many seeking cast‑vote records from 2022 and 2024 elections — and urged the board to adopt clear timing guidelines to ensure prompt public‑records responses under Minnesota statutes.
Get email alerts on the Public Records Data Requests topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chastity Saraki told the Winona County Board during public comment that she has 36 open, unfulfilled data requests pending with the county, most tied to cast‑vote record requests from the 2022 general election and the 2024 primary and general elections. She said she has received only a portion of the requested records and that follow‑up inquiries (including one on Feb. 25) have not been answered.
Saraki cited Minnesota law in urging the board to adopt a clear county policy that sets straightforward timing expectations for responding to public‑records requests. She referenced Minnesota statute 13.03, subdivision 2, section (a), which says the responsible authority in every government entity must establish procedures consistent with the chapter to ensure that government data requests are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. Saraki also cited what she read as Minnesota statute 206.84845 in arguing that cast vote records are public data (she described the statute number as provided in her remarks).
Saraki asked the board to draft a policy giving county staff clearer parameters for fulfilling data requests and giving members of the public clearer expectations for when they can reasonably expect to receive public data. She said the lack of predictable timelines undermines public trust in county transparency and asked the board to consider timing guidelines that are clear and enforceable.
The board did not take immediate formal action on the request during the meeting; commissioners later discussed broadly that staff should be asked to report back on matters of administrative procedure and state‑level funding impacts in other agenda items. The transcript does not record a direct county response to Saraki’s request during the public comment period.

