January 12, 2001; Minnesota Department of Human Services
1/12/2001 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 classified as not public, are available for public access. On November 17, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by 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 November 28, 2000, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for DHS's position. On December 5, 2000, IPA received a response from Marsha Eldot Devine, Assistant Attorney General. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. According to X, since August 1, 2000, s/he has requested access to public and private data maintained by DHS. X stated: [s]ince August 1, 2000, I have been repeatedly required to identify myself, state reasons for, and justify my request for public government data. X identified several DHS employees whom X says requested that information. X also stated that in August, 2000, a particular DHS employee demanded that I put all my data requests in writing, which is clearly a violation of Minnesota Statute 13.05, Subdivision 12, since she required that I identify myself and provided no alternative that would not require disclosure of my identity. X also asserted that on November 16, 2000, X told an employee in Commissioner O'Keefe's office that X was calling to obtain public data and the employee demanded to know who I was. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Eldot Devine recounted the history, over several months, of X's data practices requests to DHS, in which X voluntarily and without solicitation provided his/her full name and address. In regard to X's assertions that various DHS staff asked for X's identification, Ms. Eldot Devine stated that it is common practice for DHS staff to ask the identity of persons who telephone Commissioner O'Keefe. Ms. Eldot Devine did not directly address whether, in fact, DHS requires X to make all of his/her data requests in writing. According to Ms. Eldot Devine, DHS has designated an employee to to represent DHS in all contacts from and concerning X. That delegation, which originated in 1998, was prompted by DHS's concern for the safety and security of employees at DHS, after X had engaged in inappropriate interactions with DHS staff . . . . She referred to a letter sent to X by DHS in which X was reminded that the staff person was the designated contact for X at DHS, but it is not clear if, in that letter, X was directed to make all data requests to DHS in writing. Ms. Eldot Devine stated that the decision to delegate one staff person as X's contact at DHS was not prompted by X's data practices requests, nor was it continued for that reason. The letter of August 25, 2000, which was sent to X to remind [X] of this delegation was simply a continuation of an already existing directive. Contrary to X's claim, X has never been forced to identify [him/herself] and provided with no alternatives that would not require disclosure of [X's] identity. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:The 2000 Minnesota Legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 12. It went into effect on August 1, 2000, and provides: Unless specifically authorized by statute, government entities may not require persons to identify themselves, state a reason for, or justify a request to gain access to public government data. A person may be asked to provide certain identifying or clarifying information for the sole purpose of facilitating access to the data. In this case, there is a factual dispute which the Commissioner is unable to resolve. X alleges that on several occasions, s/he was asked to identify him/herself and to justify requests for data. DHS denies that assertion, and states that X has voluntarily provided his/her identification. Also, DHS states that X was asked for identification in order to take a message or convey X's concerns to the appropriate person. In some of those cases, according to Ms. Eldot Devine, X was not making a data practices request when asked for identification. Neither party provided conclusive documentation to support its position. Section 13.05, subdivision 12, clearly states that government entities cannot require that individuals making requests for public data identify themselves or justify their requests, unless identifying or clarifying information is required to facilitate the response. If DHS employees requested identifying information and/or justification for any data requests, they are in violation of Chapter 13. If DHS employees did not request such information, no violation has occurred. In the past, the Commissioner has opined that government entities, as part of the policies and procedures they establish to ensure appropriate access to government data, may require the data to requestor to put the request in writing. The new provisions of section 13.05, subdivision 12, will affect such policies. Clearly government entities now may not require identification from public data requestors. However, we think it is reasonable for a government entity, as part of its data access policies and procedures, to require a written description of the data sought, without requiring the requestor to include her/his identification, reasons or justification. Requiring a written description of the data does not offend the statute, but can ensure clarification that promotes compliance with a request for public government data. In addition, a written record of data requests can reduce disagreements over compliance. Regarding DHS's designation of a specific person to deal with X's data requests, the Commissioner has the following comments. DHS stated that due to the nature of its past association with X, it has designated a specific person to whom X must direct all data practices requests. This is not a violation of Chapter 13. It is not clear if DHS requires X to contact the point person only in writing. On its face, such a requirement would appear to violate section 13.05, subdivision 12, because X would, by necessity, have to identify her/himself each time s/he contacted DHS. However, given the history of its contacts with X, as described by DHS, the Commissioner believes it would be reasonable for DHS to place that restriction upon X's contacts with DHS, including X's requests for access to data. The Legislature enacted section 13.05, subdivision 12, in large part to facilitate public access to government data, by eliminating artificial barriers that discourage access. However, in situations like this one, if DHS does require X to make all his/her data requests in writing, it appears that DHS is not doing so in order to discourage those requests, but rather out of concern that there be absolute clarity as to what data X is asking DHS to provide, and to avoid further disagreement about how DHS is required to respond. It is unfortunate, but, in our view, does not amount to an artificial barrier to access to data. Therefore, in very limited situations such as this, we believe that DHS may require that X contact it only in writing. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: January 12, 2001 |
Requests for data
To responsible authority or designated person, required
