April 7, 1994; Ramsey County
4/7/1994 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:On March 7, 1994, the Commissioner of Administration received a letter from X, a resident of Roseville, Minnesota. In this letter and the enclosures that accompanied it, X described attempts by her to gain access to certain data maintained by the Ramsey County Attorney's office of Child Support and Collections (CSC).X provided a copy of a letter that she had sent to Ms. Tamsin Bergmann, a child support supervisor in CSC, on February 15, 1994, and to Ms. Judith Wong, the CSC manager, on March 2, 1994. In that letter, X asked to inspect and to receive copies of all checks sent by CSC to her for child support. She stated that she was making this request to cover all checks sent to her in the time period from January, 1986, to February, 1994. X also requested that she receive all information about revenue recapture and wage withholding in regards to payments collected by the county for recovery of payments made to her for public assistance for herself and her son. She specifically stated that when this data was provided she did not want to receive any data that would identify an individual, named in her letter, who is the father of her son. For both types of data, she asked that she be provided access within five days of her request and she cited the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA that she believed to be applicable to her request. X provided a copy of a letter from Ms. Bergman, dated March 2, 1994, that was sent in response to X's February 15, 1994, letter. In this letter, Ms. Bergman first stated the following: I am sorry that we are unable to comply with your request for copies of all checks sent to you by this office from January, 1986, through February, 1994. It is the policy of this office to provide copies of cancelled checks only when the receipt of a specific check is in question. Our policy has not changed since you made this same request in 1991. Ms. Bergman went on the explain that X receives a monthly statement, called a Notice of Collections that provides detailed information about payments received and distributed by CSC in the previous month. Ms. Bergman also mentioned that CSC prepares account reviews once a year upon a written request and that an account review was prepared for X on April 29, 1993. Ms. Bergman stated that if X wanted another account review, that she would need to submit a written request to her child support agent. In her letter to the Commissioner, X then asked that the Commissioner review the position of herself and of Ramsey County concerning her right to access information in regards to collection and distribution of child support to herself and to the County. Based on her request to the Commissioner, staff of the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) formulated the issue described in the Issues section below. In response to X's request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tom Foley, the Ramsey County Attorney. CSC is organizationally located within the Ramsey County Attorney's Office. As the elected county attorney, Mr. Foley is the responsible authority for the MGDPA for his office. The purposes of this letter, dated March 14, 1994, were to inform Mr. Foley of X's request for an opinion, to ask Mr. Foley to provide any information or support for CSC's position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On March 22, 1994, Don Gemberling, director of PIPA wrote to X and Mr. Foley to inform them that due to his absence from the office, that issuance of the opinion would be delayed. For good cause, the Commissioner may delay issuance of an opinion up to 30 days after the initial 20 days allowed by the opinion statute. On March 31, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a response from Ms. Jill Fedje, an Assistant Ramsey County Attorney. Ms. Fedje first reviewed the status of data collected and maintained by CSC. As CSC operates under contracts with the state Department of Human Services, it was her position that data collected by CSC is welfare data regulated by Section 13.46 of the MGDPA. She went on to point out that welfare data is classified as private data by Section 13.46 and that on account of that classification X would not have a right to see all data contained in the file about collection of support. Ms Fedje reviewed X's rights to see data maintained about her and stated that . . . Ramsey County Child Support and Collections has complied fully with the mandates of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. She went on to state that contrary to X's belief, CSC does not keep copies of the checks requested by X. She did refer to Ms. Bergman's description of CSC's practice of providing monthly statements and account reviews as a means for X to get access to information. In closing her letter, Ms. Fedje reiterated that CSC does not keep on its premises copies of the checks sent to the custodial parent and pointed out that X has been given monthly notices and account reviews on numerous occasions .
Issue:
In its letter to the Ramsey County Attorney's Office, PIPA summarized the issue raised by X in her request for an opinion as follows:
Discussion:In the letters she sent to Ms. Bergman and Ms. Wong, X made two distinct requests for access to data maintained by CSC. She first asked to inspect and to receive copies of cancelled checks that had been sent to her during the period of time from January, 1986, to February, 1994. She also requested all information about revenue recapture and wage withholding concerning payments collected by Ramsey County and funds kept by the County to recover AFDC monies spent on herself and her son. She specifically noted in making this latter request that she did not want to have access to any data that would identify the father of her son. In response to X's first request, Ms. Bergman stated, in her March 3, 1994, letter that CSC could not comply with X's requests for copies of the checks. She stated that it was the policy of CSC to only provide copies of cancelled checks when the receipt of a specific check was in question. Ms. Bergman did not respond to X's second request other than to mention that CSC provides monthly notice of collections and on request, subject to certain limitations, will prepare account reviews. In reviewing CSC's position on X's two requests, Ms. Fedje commented on X's first request by stating that copies of checks or the actual checks are not kept on CSC's premises. In commenting on X's second request, Ms. Fedje stated that as this data is welfare data , subject to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, that X does not have the right to see data contained in X's CSC file that involves the noncustodial parent. Ms. Fedje also mentions the availability of monthly statements and account reviews. Under the MGDPA, X has the right to gain access to all private or public data maintained about her by CSC. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Ms. Fedje, in her response, acknowledged that the data that CSC is collecting and maintaining is welfare data , regulated by Section 13.46 of the MGDPA, because CSC is part of the welfare system. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46 subdivision 1 (c).) Data on individuals maintained by the welfare system are, with certain exceptions, classified as private data. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 2.) To the extent that CSC maintains private data about her, including actual or copies of cancelled checks sent to her, X has the right under Section 13.04 of the MGDPA to gain access to that data. Access for purposes of Section 13.04, subdivision 3 consists of either physically inspecting these checks or receiving copies of them. In her February 15, 1994 letter to CSC, X asked to inspect certain checks and to receive copies of them. Ms. Bergman did not respond to that request by saying that CSC did not keep the actual checks or copies of them. She responded by saying that it was the policy of CSC to only provide copies of checks under certain circumstances. Although that may be CSC's policy, that policy ignores the duty that CSC owes to X, and to other individuals on whom it maintains private data, to provide access to that data in compliance with Section 13.04, subdivision 3 of the MGDPA. CSC cannot operate a policy that is counter to the requirements of the MGDPA. In her comment on X's request for an opinion, Ms. Fedje states that CSC cannot provide the actual checks or copies of them to X because the checks or copies are not kept on the premises of CSC. In light of Ms. Bergman's response to the effect that CSC will provide copies of checks under certain circumstances, Ms. Fedje's comment is confusing. Her explanation that the checks are not kept on the premises of CSC is also confusing. A government entity cannot avoid its duties under the MGDPA simply by choosing to physically store data for which it is accountable outside the normal offices of the entity. No matter where CSC may be choosing to physically store public or private data about X, she has the right to gain access to that data. In this situation, particularly in light of the comments made by Ms. Bergman, X had the right to expect that the actual checks or copies of them are available from CSC. If the data constituting these checks is actually maintained by another government entity, then CSC should clear up the confusion it has created by either assisting X to secure the copies of the checks to which she is entitled from that entity or by referring X to that entity. In addition to the right to gain access to the private data in the checks she requested, X has the right to request access to and CSC is required to provide her with access to other private data maintained about her by CSC. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.) In addition to her rights as a data subject, she has a right as a citizen to gain access to public data maintained by CSC. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 1 through 3.) Depending on the actual content of the data maintained by CSC, X's second request is either a request for access to private data about herself, a request for access to public data that documents transactions involving money that the County has collected and paid to itself for recovery of previous AFDC payments to X and her son or a combination of both. Except for references to monthly statements and account reviews, Ms. Bergman did not respond at all to X's second request. In her comments, Ms. Fedje mentions that X cannot get access to private data about the noncustodial parent in CSC files and also states that X gets a monthly statement and can ask for an account review. However, in making her second request, X specifically stated that she did not want to receive data that would identify the noncustodial data. She asks for data about CSC's collections of money and disbursements of that money to itself and to her. While CSC personnel persist in offering her monthly statements and account reviews, X is asking for the source data, either public data not on individuals about the County and how it pays itself over the course of CSC's relationship with X or private data about herself and the course of that relationship, that CSC uses to produce or prepare account reviews or monthly statements. This kind of data not on individuals maintained by the welfare system is public data. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, subdivision 1 and 13.46, subdivision 6.) CSC, both in Ms. Bergman's initial response and in Ms. Fedje's comments, refuses to acknowledge that X is asking for data that CSC maintains or to tell her that the data she seeks does not exist. In essence, CSC keeps saying to X: We will give you what we want to give you (account reviews and monthly statements) but we will not give you the data you are asking for (private data about X or all public data concerning how the County disburses money to itself.) X is entitled to this data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3 and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivisions 1 through 3. To the extent that CSC is maintaining data about private data on individuals other than X, it is CSC's responsibility, in properly handling her requests, to separate private data about others from private data about X and public data about the County. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04 and 13.03, subdivisions 1-3.) Access to the private data about X should have been provided to her within five days of her initial request and access to the public data she requested at the same time should have been provided to her promptly. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.08, subdivision 3 and 13.03, subdivision 2.) Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X, as stated in the March 14, 1994, letter to Mr. Foley, is as follows:
Signed:
Debra Rae Anderson
Dated: April 7, 1994
|
Response to data requests
Data subjects
Child support
