October 5, 2001; Martin County
10/5/2001 10:15:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access. On August 13, 2001, IPA received a letter dated August 9, 2001, from Richard Bolster. In his letter, Mr. Bolster asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data that Martin County maintains. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kay Wrucke, Recorder of the County, in response to Mr. Bolster's request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 14, 2001, were to inform her of Mr. Bolster's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County's position. On August 30, 2001, IPA received a response, dated August 24, 2001, from Ms. Wrucke. A summary of the facts according to Mr. Bolster is as follows. On July 23, 2001, Mr. Bolster went to the Recorder's Office at the County Court House and inquired about the procedures for reviewing birth records. Mr. Bolster related that the deputy clerk advised him that he could not review birth records and that they were not public. Mr. Bolster wrote, The deputy continued that if there were specific information that I wanted from the birth records, she would have to review the birth records and give me the information if she is allowed. Mr. Bolster continued, I believe 'birth records' meets Minnesota Status [sic] 144.225, Subdivision 1 and Minnesota Status [sic] 13.02, Subdivision 15 are public records that can be personally reviewed upon request. He added, Minnesota Status [sic], 144.225, Subdivision 2 specifically states that birth records meeting those facts are 'confidential.' I believe that the Martin County Recorder is filing birth records in such a manner that 'public' and 'confidential' are together. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Bolster asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Before proceeding, the following note is appropriate. Certain birth data are private or confidential. However, for purposes of this opinion, the Commissioner assumes that Mr. Bolster's request involves only those birth data that are public. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, regulates access to government data. Birth records that a County maintains are government data. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3, when an individual makes a request for data of which he is not the subject, that individual shall be permitted to inspect and copy the data at reasonable times and places. In the case of this opinion, however, there is an additional statutory provision that applies to vital records. Minnesota Statutes, section 144.225, states: Except as otherwise provided for in this section and section 144.1761 [adoption records], information contained in vital records shall be public information. Physical access to vital records shall be subject to the supervision and regulation of state and local registrars and their employees pursuant to rules promulgated by the commissioner in order to protect vital records from loss, mutilation or destruction and to prevent improper disclosure of records which are confidential or private data on individuals, as defined in section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 12. (The Commissioner reviewed Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4601, and did not find anything directly relating to the issues of this opinion.) In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Wrucke wrote: The birth data filed in our office is filed with confidential or private birth reports combined. There are also seal [sic] birth names revealed on the record and indexes. They are filed in ledger format in many of the books and various other formats in other books. The indexes [sic] also reveal confidential information. The costs to convert the records to other formats would be astronomical to Martin County taxpayers. We state immediately to our customers that we have confidential records combined in the books. It has always been the policy of our office to search for birth information for anyone. We refer you to MS 114.225 [sic - the Commissioner assumes Ms. Wrucke meant Minnesota Statutes, section 144.225]. By enacting section 144.225, the Legislature gave state and local registrars authority to supervise and regulate physical access to vital records. However, nothing in section 144.225 negates the County's obligations under Chapter 13. Pursuant to Section 13.03, the County is required to provide public birth record data to Mr. Bolster. However, pursuant to sections 13.02 and 13.04, the County also is obligated to protect from disclosure those data that are private or confidential data. Further, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, the County is required to keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Ms. Wrucke appears to be asserting that in the County, the data at issue are recorded/maintained in such a way that an individual viewing public data could also view private and/or confidential data. On its face, section 144.225 appears to say that state and local registrars have total authority to determine physical access to vital records. However, section 144.225 must be read in concert with the public access requirements of Chapter 13. This means that, to the extent possible, individuals be given physical access to public data. If this is not possible, then the way in which Martin County allows access to public data is up to the County, as long as it fulfills its obligations to make public data accessible, to physically protect those data, and to prohibit release of private and/or confidential data. It is not clear whether Mr. Bolster is asking to browse all public birth records or whether he is asking for information on a specific individual(s). In either case, if it is possible for the County to physically separate the public data from the not public data, it should do so. If this is not possible, the Commissioner has the following suggestions. One is for the County to photocopy the page(s) Mr. Bolster wishes to review and then to redact the not public data from the photocopy(s). Another suggestion is for the County to develop some type of template it could place over the not public data but which would expose the public data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Bolster raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: October 5, 2001 |
Response to data requests
Vital records
