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, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.

On September 14, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion concerning his/her rights regarding a policy of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS.)

In response to X's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael O'Keefe, Commissioner of DHS. The purposes of this letter, dated September 20, 2001, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for DHS's position. On October 24, 2001, IPA received a response from Noah Cashman, Assistant Attorney General for DHS. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.

X is a patient at the Minnesota Sex Offender Program ( Program ) in Moose Lake. X disagreed with certain data in his/her treatment plan, and was informed that s/he could submit a written addendum that would be included in the record. X replied that s/he understood that the appropriate route to challenge data was through Commissioner O'Keefe. S/he was advised that both options were available, and that the addendum option was the established practice of the Program. X located a copy of the Program policy in question, Policy # 24.6, Section IV, which states that data challenges may be submitted to the Program CEO, who will make a determination regarding the disputed data. If the patient disagrees with the CEO's determination, s/he may appeal to the Commissioner of Human Services within 60 days of notice.

In his response to the Commissioner of Administration, Mr. Cashman made the following comments:

The issue that [X] asks Commissioner Fisher to address results from an error by the Program. After a review of Policy #24.6 in 1999, the Program decided it would not use the data challenge procedures set out in Section IV of the policy. It determined that the procedure specified in [the DHS] The Key to Privacy brochure [a copy of which X had obtained from DHS] was the appropriate one for challenging the accuracy and completeness of data held by the Program. And that is, in fact, the procedure that is followed by the Program. Once it had determined that the data challenge procedures in Policy # 24.6 would not be followed, the Program should have revised the Policy to avoid any confusion as to what its accuracy and completeness procedures actually are. Program staff is now in the process of revising the Policy. The failure to issue a revised policy on accuracy and completeness challenges created confusion, and for this the Program apologizes.

[X] is also apparently concerned that the treatment team offered him/her the option to immediately add an addendum to the challenged record in addition to submitting a written accuracy and completeness challenge to the Commissioner. The practical effect of such an addendum is that anyone referring to the challenged data before the Commissioner renders his decision would learn that the data is being challenged. In the event that the Commissioner upholds the challenge, the data would then be corrected and the addendum removed. If the challenge fails, the addendum would remain if the challenger continues to maintain that the data is inaccurate or incomplete.

This seems to be a fair and expeditious way to acknowledge that there is an existing dispute about the accuracy and completeness of certain data, and it is fully consistent with [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13.] It is also consistent with [Minnesota Rules Part] 1205.0900(B), which requires the Commissioner to make good faith attempts to resolve administrative controversies over the agency's data practices.