October 19, 2000; Wadena County
10/19/2000 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 August 4, 2000, IPA received a letter dated July 23, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding a possible violation of X's rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. After clarification with IPA staff, it was agreed that the Commissioner would issue an opinion regarding whether a Wadena County employee inappropriately gained access to data about X. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Paul Sailer, Director of Wadena County Social Services, in response to X's request. The purposes of this letter, dated September 1, 2000, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County's position. On September 12, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Jonathan Edin, Wadena County Attorney. A summary of the facts as presented by X is as follows. X and Y are parents of a child. X is now married to Z. Y is an employee of Wadena County. On March 1, 1999, Z visited the County Social Services Department in regard to a matter about an income tax refund. X wrote: ...The documents [s/he] was required to submit according to Wadena County Social Services had financial data about myself on it also. Because the custodial parent of my child works in the same office, we knew that this information given would be passed on to [her/him]. But...we had to submit the documents requested. On March 3rd, 1999, I was notified by Wadena County Social Services that [the custodial parent - Y] had requested a motion to modify the child support due to a substantial increase in income.... Since the custodial parent began working at Social Services...I have been subjected to numerous motions to modify support....The custodial parent somehow found out used it against me, I don't believe this is just a coincidence as social services claims, it happens to [sic] often. Issue:In X's request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12, private data are not available to the public and are available to the subject of the data. Further, Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, provides that private data are available to individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably requires that they gain access to the data. In the case of this opinion, the data at issue are classified as private. In his response to the Commissioner, County Attorney Edin wrote: [X's] complaint makes a false assumption; that [his/her] personal information was accessed or shared with the custodial parent of [his/her] child via [his/her] employment in the social services agency. The agency's policy is and always has been full compliance with the Data Privacy [sic] Act. The agency is emphatic that this information was not shared or accessed.... Facts pertinent to this complaint were coincidental in time only, thus apparently fueling [X and his/her spouse's] suspicion that information had been shared or accessed. The pertinent facts are these: [Z], the obligor's current [spouse], was seeking [action relating to a tax return]. The agency received [Z's related paperwork] on February 22, 1999. Child support officer [A] wrote [Z] on March 2, 1999, stating that [s/he] could not process [Z's] request until [Z's] tax return was received. In this time frame, the custodial parent...expressed [his/her] wish to [A] on March 2, 1999, that the issue of [insurance] be revisited....[The custodial parent's] request was denied by the Child Support Officer as untimely. [The custodial parent's] pro se motion on March 9, 1999, was solely addressed to amending the initial support order... [X and Z] make the assumption that [Y's] motion was precipitated by sharing of personal information protected by [Chapter 13]. This is absolutely false. The timing of the unrelated issues was merely coincidental. As stated above, private data can be disclosed only to limited individuals in limited situations. In this case, there is a dispute over the facts. X asserts that the County released private data about him/her to Y, who is a County Social Services employee. County Attorney Edin asserts that the County did not disclose X's personal information to Y. The Commissioner cannot determine if the County released data about X to Y, although there appears to be no basis upon which to doubt the County's assertion. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0400, an individual of the County can gain access to private data about X if that individual's work assignment reasonably requires that s/he gain access. In this situation, however, it would be most inappropriate for the County to determine that Y's work assignment required that s/he gain access to private data about X. Therefore, had the County released private data about X to Y, X's rights under Chapter 13 have been violated. However, if the County did not release data about X to Y, X's rights under Chapter 13 were not violated. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: October 19, 2000 |
Data sharing
Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)
