March 8, 1995; Olmsted County
3/8/1995 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.
Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation. 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 February 16, 1995, the Commissioner received a letter from X, in which he described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by Olmsted County Community Services Department (County), and in which he requested an opinion from the Commissioner on the issue stated in the Issue section below. Attached to his letter were copies of correspondence between X and the County, in which he requested access to data about him concerning three reports of incidents of alleged maltreatment of vulnerable adults, made in June and July 1994, which involved the program that X managed at that time. X was given a Tennessen Warning, i.e., the notice requirement contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 2, before being interviewed by staff of the County and the State Department of Human Services (DHS) during the investigation of the alleged incidents. X subsequently requested access to private data about himself maintained by the County which specifically relate to that investigation. Mr. James Johnson, the County's data practices designee, in a letter to X dated February 6, 1995, stated that he had ...examined the materials and information contained within case files at [the County].... and had concluded that X had gained access to all of the data to which he was entitled, as he had received summary reports from DHS, and as he was not the subject of the investigation. In response to X's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. James Johnson. The purposes of this letter, dated February 17, 1995, were to inform Mr. Johnson of X's request, to provide him with a copy of the request, to ask him or the 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 February 28, 1995, PIPA received a letter of response from Mr. Johnson, dated February 22, 1995, in which he stated the County's three reasons for denying X access to the data. First, Mr. Johnson stated that X was the manager of the program, not the director of the agency ...which might have entitled him to additional information. Second, X had received two public reports from DHS, the investigative memoranda, which Mr. Johnson said he believed ...had adequately answered [X's] questions of findings and dates of notification as well as given him enough details of the investigation.... Third, Mr. Johnson stated that County personnel involved in the investigation told him that ...X's involvement was merely incidental to the investigation itself. For these reasons, Mr. Johnson stated that ...Olmsted County has acted in an appropriate manner regarding X's request for data.
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
This issue can be addressed by examining particular sections of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 13 and 626. According to the County, the data sought by X were collected under Section 626.557, which provides, among other things, for reports of maltreatment of vulnerable adults and the handling of those reports by licensing, local welfare and law enforcement agencies.
Subdivision 12 of that Section provides guidance on the handling of records produced in investigations of maltreatment. Clause (a) states that licensing agencies shall prepare an investigation memorandum which is accessible to the public, which shall contain ...a complete review of the agency's investigation...., and which protects the identities of the reporter, the vulnerable adult, and to the extent possible, the alleged perpetrator and those interviewed during the investigation. This subdivision further states that, [a]fter the licensing agency's investigation is complete, the data on individuals collected and maintained shall be private data on individuals... [excluding the name of the reporter].... Private data are defined under Section 13.02, subdivision 12, as data which are not public and which are accessible to the data subject. Practically speaking, data collected under Minnesota Statutes Section 626.557 might include data about any of the following persons: the alleged perpetrator, the reporter, the alleged victim of the abuse or neglect, the caretaker of the vulnerable adult, and other individuals. In this case, the question is whether X has been provided with appropriate access by the County to the data he requested. Mr. Johnson stated that because X had received copies of the investigative memoranda, and because some of the data he asked for were contained in those reports, the County had no obligation to provide him access to those data. In his correspondence to the County in this matter, X framed some of his data requests in the form of questions for which he sought answers. It is therefore understandable that there may have been some confusion on the part of the County regarding its obligation to provide appropriate access to the data. However, the fact that some of the data sought by X may have been contained in the public documents he received from DHS does not obviate the County's obligation to provide X, upon his request, access to all of the public and private data it maintains about him. It appears to be the County's position that because X was neither the alleged perpetrator nor a vulnerable adult, he was not the subject of the data to which he seeks access. X stated that he received a Tennessen Warning before he was interviewed as part of the vulnerable adult investigation. Tennessen Warning is the common term used for the notice requirement contained in Section 13.04, subdivision 2, which a government entity subject to Chapter 13 must give individuals when they are asked to provide private or confidential data about themselves. Presumably, X would not have been given a Tennessen Warning if he were not asked to provide private or confidential data about himself to the investigators. The County did not assert that the data in question are confidential data about X. As noted above, pursuant to Section 626.557, subdivision 12, the data collected in the course of a vulnerable adult investigation are private data after the investigation is complete. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the County is maintaining private data about X. The fact that he is neither the alleged perpetrator nor a vulnerable adult is immaterial to the question of whether the County collected and still maintains private data on X in connection with its investigation. Section 13.04, subdivision 3, states that [u]pon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether the individual is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data.... X has a right of access to public and private government data about him. Upon his request, a government entity which maintains data about him has an obligation to provide him with access to the data he seeks, regardless of whether he may already have gained access to some of the data elsewhere. Opinion:Based on the correspondence provided in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: March 8, 1995
|
Data subjects
Tennessen warning
Informed of existence/classification
Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2)
Vulnerable adults
