July 8, 1996; Nicollet County
7/8/1996 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, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On May 20, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated May 16, 1996, requesting this opinion from Patrick J. Moriarty, an attorney representing R. In that letter, Mr. Moriarty described his client's attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by Nicollet County about S, R's minor child. Mr. Moriarty provided additional information in a letter dated May 17, 1996. Mr. Moriarty enclosed copies of his correspondence with the County detailing his attempts to gain access to the data, and the County's response to his requests. In response to Mr. Moriarty's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael K. Riley, Nicollet County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated May 22, 1996, were to inform Mr. Riley of Mr. Moriarty's request, to ask him 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 May 31, 1996, PIPA received a response from Mr. Riley. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. Moriarty, R's minor child, S, is the subject of private data maintained by the County. Mr. Moriarty wrote to the County on April 10, 1996, to request access to those data. He enclosed R's written consent. Having received no response from the County, Mr. Moriarty wrote to the County again, in a letter dated May 3, 1996. In that letter, he referred to his April 10, 1996, request, and asked that the County comply immediately with its obligations under Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04, subdivision 3, and 13.02, subdivision 8. (Those Sections provide certain rights to individual subjects of government data, and, in the case of data subjects who are minors, to their parents.) The County did not respond to Mr. Moriarty's May 3, 1996, letter. On May 13 or 14, 1996, Mr. Moriarty spoke by telephone with County staff. He was told that his April 10, 1996, data request had been referred to Mr. Riley.
Mr. Moriarty then wrote to Mr. Riley, in a letter dated May 15, 1996. In that letter, he reiterated his attempts to gain access to County data on behalf of his client. He wrote:
In response, Mr. Riley wrote to Mr. Moriarty, in a letter dated May 16, 1996:
In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Riley offered speculation as to the purpose of R's request to gain access to County data about S, and reasons for the County's concern that release of the data was not in S's best interests. Mr. Riley also stated that the County maintains both private and confidential data on S, as well as potential data which, if we release, would involve the application of some federal statutes and rules. Mr. Riley did not elaborate on which federal statutes and rules might be involved. Mr. Riley repeated that the County was withholding access to the data requested by R, through Mr. Moriarty, on the basis of Section 13.02, subdivision 8. (Mr. Riley enclosed a copy of a letter from Nicollet County to Brown County, in response to Brown County's request for access to private data on S, as part of his response to the Commissioner. In that letter, Nicollet County offered the same rationale to Brown County as it did to Mr. Moriarty, as its basis for denying access to data on S, i.e., that it would not be in S's best interests, and that it had authority to base that denial in the aforementioned provision of Section 13.02, subdivision 8.)
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Moriarty asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, provides that a government entity must give a data subject access to the public and private data it maintains about that individual within five working days of the date of the request, if immediate access is not possible. If unable to comply with the request within that time, the government entity, upon notice to the individual, may have an additional five working days within which to comply with the request.
Pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 4, individual subjects of private data may give their informed consent to authorize anyone they designate to gain access to private data about them.
Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 8,
Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500 provides further guidance regarding access to private data on minors. Subpart 2(B) provides that parents are presumed to be entitled to gain access to data about their children, unless (1) the Responsible Authority is provided with evidence of a state law, court order or legally binding instrument which provides to the contrary, or (2) the minor data subject has requested that the Responsible Authority deny her/his parents access and the Responsible Authority determines that it is in the best interests of the minor to withhold the data from the minor's parents. The County did not provide evidence of a state law, court order or legally binding instrument that prohibits R from gaining access to County data about S. (Mr. Riley, in his response to the Commissioner, stated that release of some of the data on S, would involve the application of some federal statutes and rules. However, Mr. Riley did not provide any citations, and the Commissioner is not aware of any federal law that appears to be relevant to this matter.) The County also did not assert that S requested that R be denied access to those data. The language of Section 13.02, subdivision 8, is clear. The minor must request that the Responsible Authority deny her/his parents access to data about the minor. Then, and only then, is the Responsible Authority authorized to make a determination as to the best interests of the minor child with regard to the parent's right to gain access to data about the child. The rationale for that requirement is to protect the rights of both minors and parents. In order further to ensure that minors' rights under Section 13.02, subdivision 8, are protected, Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500, subpart 3(A), requires responsible authorities to give minor subjects of private or confidential data notice of their rights to request that parental access to the data be denied. The County did not provide information about whether it gave S proper notice of that right. However, responsible authorities may exercise the discretion to withhold data on minor children from their parents only when the minor child so requests, and the Responsible Authority determines that it is in the minor child's best interests. Therefore, based upon the information provided, the Commissioner must conclude that the County may not deny R access to data about S on the basis of Section 13.02, subdivision 8. Furthermore, the County was obligated to respond immediately, or if that was not possible, within five working days, to Mr. Moriarty's request for access to data about S. Mr. Moriarty wrote to the County the first time on April 10, 1996. Several letters and telephone conversations later, Mr. Riley finally provided the County's response in a letter dated May 16, 1996. In that letter, Mr. Riley wrote . . . if, in fact, you are making an immediate demand for this information, and do not wish to allow us time to review the situation, we are respectfully refusing to disclose based on the authority set forth in the foregoing statute [Section 13.02, subdivision 8.] In fact, Mr. Riley had made his request for access to the data five weeks earlier. The County was required by Section 13.04, subdivision 3, to respond to that request immediately, or within five working days thereafter. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Moriarty is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: July 8, 1996
|
Data subjects
Educational data
Minor request to withhold data
