April 9, 1999; Carlton County
4/9/1999 10:14:43 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 February 26, 1999, IPA received a letter dated February 23, 1999, from individuals hereinafter referred to as the J's. In their letter, the J's requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding their access to certain data maintained by Carlton County. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Karen Wunderlich, Public Health and Human Services Director of Carlton County Human Services, in response to the J's request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 26, 1999, were to inform her of the J's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County's position. On March 12, 1999, IPA received a response, dated same, from Dennis Genereau, Jr., Assistant Carlton County Attorney. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated September 8, 1998, the J's wrote to Ms. Wunderlich and asked to review the following information: all public and private data maintained about us (and our children) by your agency....We wish to make an appointment to inspect those data. In a letter dated October 18, 1998, on page one and October 23, 1998, on page two, the J's attorney, Keith Carlson, wrote to Ms. Wunderlich and, among other things, requested that the County allow my clients access to their social services file. In a letter dated November 6, 1998, Ms. Wunderlich wrote to the J's. She stated she understood that the following had occurred: Ms. Holden [Supervisor of Social Services] had two meetings with you - one of which was on September 22. At that time, she reviewed all of the information contained in the case file of Carlton County Human Services. I was told that as [sic] she identified the various documents in the file, and that you acknowledged that you had a copies [sic] of the letters, memos or documents she referenced. I understand there were case notes in the file which were prepared by our Agency Social Worker. However, information contained in these notes were [sic] directed specifically at [X - the J's adult son] and we are unable to share this data. However, if [X] is willing to sign a release of information, we could review the file again in light of that request. In their opinion request, the J's wrote that they had met with Ms. Holden on September 22, 1998. At the meeting, Ms. Holden kept the file in her lap. The J's added, As of February 23, 1999; [sic] we have not received access to inspect the file/data. Issue:In their request for an opinion, the J's asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.04, upon making a request, a data subject has the right to inspect and/or obtain copies of data about him/her. In addition, the government entity must respond to data requests immediately, or within five to ten working days. Also, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, a parent has the right to gain access to data about his/her minor children. (See Minnesota Rules section 1205.0500 for more information and some exceptions.) In his response, Mr. Genereau confirmed that Ms. Holden did meet with the J's on September 22, 1998. He wrote: At that time Ms. Holden did review all of the information in the case file that had been determined to be private data on the J's. Ms. Holden did not provide the J's with access to any data that [the County] considered private data on the J's adult son [X], but indicated that she would be willing to do so if [X] was willing to sign a release to allow the J's to review [X's] private data.... [The County] acted properly in not disclosing [X's] data as it was private data on [X] and not private data on the J's.... [The County] maintains that it acted appropriately in reviewing the J's request for data and reviewing with them the data they were entitled access to--data of which they were subjects. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Genereau that the County has complied with the J's request. As stated above, pursuant to section 13.04, subdivision 3, the J's have the right to inspect and/or obtain copies of data of which they are the subject. Based on the J's statements and Mr. Genereau's response, the County did not allow the J's the opportunity to inspect (examine) the data about them. Rather, Ms. Holden remained in possession of the file and discussed the various documents therein; this does not satisfy the County's obligation to provide access. If some of the data in the file's documents are not about the J's but are about their adult child, the County is correct that if X has not signed a release form, the J's cannot gain access to any such data. However, if certain documents contain data about both the J's and X, the County is obligated to separate (by redaction) the data so the J's can gain access to any data about them. (See Advisory Opinion 96-002 for situations regarding impossible separations of multiple data subject data.) Therefore, since it has been at least six months since the J's made their request and the County has not yet permitted them to inspect the data, the County should do so immediately. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by the J's is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: April 9, 1999 |
Multiple data subjects
Parent access, adult child
