November 8, 2000; Douglas County
11/8/2000 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 September 19, 2000, IPA received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. X. In this letter, Mr. and Mrs. X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding their right to gain access to certain data maintained by Douglas County Human Services (DCHS). In response to the request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Michael J. Woods, the director of DCHS. The purposes of this letter, dated September 20, 2000, were to inform him of the request and to ask him to provide information or support for DCHS's position. On September 29, 2000, IPA received a response from Mr. Woods. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. and Mrs. X, DCHS has conducted a Child in Need of Protective Services investigation about the X family. Mr. and Mrs. X have made multiple oral and written requests to DCHS to review data about themselves that relate to the investigation and its findings. Mr. and Mrs. X were not permitted to access the data about their family as part of their appeal of the DCHS determination that neglect had occurred and that child protective services were needed. In responding to Mr. and Mrs. X's requests, DCHS stated that the data were confidential because a decision regarding a Child in Need of Protective Services petition had not yet been made by Douglas County. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Woods wrote: The data remains confidential as long as our office is actively considering or pursuing a Child in Need of Protective Petition. Per Minnesota Statutes 13.46, Subdivision 3, the data remains investigative and, therefore, retains a confidential classification. Issues:In their request for an opinion, Mr. and Mrs. X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:The resolution of the issue rests with a comparison of two provisions of Minnesota law, specifically Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46 and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556. Douglas County has relied on the classification of investigative data in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 3. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46 is the portion of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act that deals generally with family, welfare and benefit data. Subdivision 3 classifies data collected or maintained by the welfare system about an investigation authorized by statute as confidential. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 3, provides that data that are classified as confidential data on individuals are not accessible to the subject of the data. Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, governs maltreatment of minors including how allegations are made and investigated and how data about the allegations and investigations are classified. Regarding the classification of maltreatment investigative data, Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11, states in pertinent part: Subd. 11. Records. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) and subdivisions 10b, 10d, 10g, and 11b, all records concerning individuals maintained by a local welfare agency or agency responsible for assessing or investigating the report under this section, including any written reports filed under subdivision 7, shall be private data on individuals... (emphasis added). Private data on individuals are accessible to the subjects of that data. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12. When two provisions of Minnesota law appear to resolve the same issue, the provisions are said to be irreconcilable. Minnesota law also provides rules to be used to avoid a finding that sections of law are irreconcilable. In Minnesota Statutes, section 645.26, subdivision 1, the Legislature has stated that specific provisions of law overrule general provisions. In order to resolve the issue in dispute here, it must be determined which provision is specific and which is general. Following a review of the two provisions and the facts in this case where an allegation of maltreatment has been made and investigated, it is clear that Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11, is the specific provision. Section 626.556 governs maltreatment of minors; section 13.46 governs welfare system investigations generally. Because section 626.556 controls in this case, the data about Mr. and Mrs. X are classified as private data on individuals and were accessible to Mr. and Mrs. X throughout the period of investigation by DCHS. Further support for this conclusion is found in the portion of Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 11, that classifies the identity of the reporter of alleged maltreatment as confidential. If the investigative data were classified as confidential, there would be no need for the classification of the reporter's identity as confidential. As the Legislature has classified the identity of the reporter as confidential both during and after the investigation, it is logical to conclude that the investigative data are private data on individuals, as stated in Minnesota Statutes, section 626.566, subdivision 11. This conclusion is also supported by Minnesota Statutes, section 626.556, subdivision 10 (h). It states in pertinent part: ...[D]ata acquired by the local welfare agency during the course of the assessment or investigation are private data on individuals and must be maintained in accordance with subdivision 11. This statement was made by the Legislature in 1995 as part of a provision that directed local welfare agency conduct of maltreatment investigations. Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 3, has been part of that section since 1979. Another rule for interpreting laws passed by the Legislature is that the most recent in time controls older law. In other words, the Legislature's statement in 1995 that data collected during a maltreatment investigation are classified as private controls over a 1979 that provides the welfare system investigative data are confidential. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. and Mrs. X is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: November 8, 2000 |
Educational data
Licensing data
Statutory construction (Ch. 645)
Data access to data subject
Child maltreatment data
Conflicting or irreconcilable provisions (645.26)
Later enacted statute
Investigative data
