June 29, 1995; Steele County
6/29/1995 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 citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.On May 19, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated May 15, 1995, from Eric Mattison, an attorney for R. In his letter, Mr. Mattison, on behalf of R, requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding, ...whether the access to and disclosure of private data on individuals to co-workers within the Human Services office for purely personal reasons is a violation of the Data Practices Act.... In response to Mr. Mattison's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Stanley Groff, Director of Steele County Human Services. The purposes of this letter, dated May 23, 1995, were to inform Mr. Groff of Mr. Mattison's request, to ask him or Steele County's attorney to provide information or support for the County's position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On June 5, 1995, PIPA received a response from Mr. Groff. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Mattison was notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by statute to issue this opinion.) A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. According to Mr. Mattison, on approximately February 2 or 3, 1995, R contacted Steele County Human Services with questions concerning eligibility for Medical Assistance (MA) in connection with specific medical care. At that time, R provided information, including R's name, address, and description of the medical condition for which R had been treated. Subsequently, at about 1:30 p.m. on February 7, 1995, R met with Diann, a financial worker for the MA program in Steele County. Thereafter, R provided additional information to Diann as required and requested by Diann. According to Mr. Mattison, later in the day on February 7, 1995, R received a telephone call, at home, from M, an employee of Steele County Human Services. Mr. Mattison stated that the apparent purpose of M's call was to inform R that M knew the reason for R's presence at the Human Services offices and had knowledge of R's medical care. Also according to Mr. Mattison, other employees of the Steele County Human Services offices had knowledge of R's circumstances. Mr. Mattison related that following M's telephone call, R called Diann to inquire why and under what circumstances M was informed, apparently within a matter of hours, of the reason for R's visit. According to Mr. Mattison, Diann indicated that M came to her seeking information regarding R's appointment. Also according to Mr. Mattison, R was not otherwise provided an adequate explanation and was asked to speak directly with the Director of Steele County Human Services, Mr. Groff. When R did speak with Mr. Groff, the explanation, apparently, was not adequate. While Mr. Groff's response, on behalf of Steele County, does not specifically address the issue of whether M's work assignment reasonably required access to the data about R, he made three points which, according to him, put, ...the matter in a fundamentally different light... First he explained that Diann, as a relatively new financial worker, needed to consult with a knowledgeable colleague prior to the interview on February 7, 1995, about, ...which application to take so as to give the best possible service and not waste [R's] time by taking the wrong type of application.... According to Mr. Groff, Diann's supervisor was out of the office that day and M, the second-most senior financial worker, was available. Secondly, Mr. Groff asserted that M actually ran into R in the hallway of the offices of Steele County Human Services either just before or just after the February 7, 1995, interview. Thirdly, Mr. Groff stated that while M did call R on the evening of February 7, 1995, the reason for the telephone contact was to reassure R that M's observation of R in the office that day and possible consultation on the facts of the situation was in no way of interest to M, nor would the information be used in any way, either inside the agency or outside the agency. M's call to R that night was for the purpose of reaching out and reassurance. Finally, Mr. Groff adds, ...We hope that this adequately demonstrates that no part of the Data Practices Act were violated....
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Mattison asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
The central issue in this opinion is whether M's work assignment, as an employee of Steele County Human Services, reasonably required access to private data about R.
There appears to be no dispute regarding the classification of the data collected about R by Steele County. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 1, Steele County Human Services is part of the Minnesota welfare system and, in most cases, data on individuals collected and maintained by the welfare system are private data. Section 13.02, subdivision 2, defines private data as, ...data which is made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the subject of that data. Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400 provides guidance concerning access to private data. Specifically, subpart 2 provides for who may see private data, Access to private data shall be available only to the following:...individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access.... In addition, subpart 3 states, The responsible authority shall establish written procedures to assure that access is gained only by those parties identified in subpart 2.... Steele County's response neither specifically addressed the issue of whether M's work assignment reasonably required access to the data about R nor did it indicate whether Steele County has established the procedures required under Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 3. The only rationale offered by Steele County in support of its position that M had authorization to gain access to the private data about R is that Diann's supervisor was out of the office on February 7, 1995, and that Diann needed to consult with a knowledgeable colleague before collecting the data about R. Based on this information, Mr. Goff appears to suggest that because M is considered a knowledgeable colleague, it is automatic that M's work assignment reasonably requires access to the data about R. However, the only way to ascertain whether M's work assignment does reasonably require access to the type of data collected and maintained about R is if Steele County so directed in its policies and procedures. Steele County did not provide a copy of the written procedures described in Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 3. Absent a statement in those procedures that M's work assignment reasonably required access to the data about R, it appears that the sharing of the data about R was not authorized. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Mattison is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: June 29, 1995
|
Data subjects
Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)
