June 4, 1998; St. Louis County
6/4/1998 10:16:43 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 PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On April 15, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated April 14, 1998, from Peter Nickitas, an attorney representing K and K's minor children. In his letter, Mr. Nickitas requested an opinion regarding several issues surrounding his client's access to data maintained by St. Louis County. Pursuant to telephone conversations between PIPA staff, Mr. Nickitas, and Clay Odden (Assistant St. Louis County Attorney), one issue (relating to copying charges) was agreed upon. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Julie Brunner, Administrator of St. Louis County, in response to Mr. Nickitas' request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 21, 1998, were to inform her of Mr. Nickitas' request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County's position. On May 4, PIPA received a response, dated May 1, 1998, from Mr. Odden. A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In a letter dated March 16, 1998, Mr. Nickitas made a data request on behalf of K. He requested copies of all data of which K and K's children are the subject. In a letter dated March 19, 1998, Mr. Odden responded by stating that there was a copying fee of $0.60 per page and that the pages requested numbered 400 to 500. He also stated that the charges were payable in advance. In a letter dated March 20, 1998, Mr. Nickitas objected that the copying charge was higher than that prescribed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. Mr. Nickitas also noted that pursuant to Minnesota Rules Sections 9500.2740, subpart 11, and 9500.0130, subpart 4, his client may be entitled to free copies of some of the requested data. In his opinion request, Mr. Nickitas provided a copy of a document entitled, St. Louis County 1998 Fee Schedule. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nickitas asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, data subjects are entitled to obtain copies of data about them. While government entities may charge a fee for these copies, Chapter 13 limits any charge to the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. (Section 13.04, subdivision 3.) Further guidance can be found at Minnesota Rules Sections 1205.0300 and 1205.0400. Subpart 4 of Section 1205.0300 states that in determining the amount of a reasonable fee, the government entity shall look to the following criteria (see also Section 1205.0400, subpart 5.): 1. the cost of materials, including paper, used to provide the copies; 2. the cost of the labor required to prepare the copies; 3. any schedule of standard copying charges as established by the agency in its normal course of business; 4. any special costs necessary to produce such copies from machine based record keeping systems, including but not limited to computers and microfilm systems; and 5. mailing costs. In his comments to the Commissioner regarding the County's $0.60 per page fee, Mr. Odden wrote: [a] review of the time spent retrieving private or confidential information, involved not separating public from not-public information, but from the necessity of separating out data subjects.... In determining an appropriate charge, [County staff], simply estimated the cost of the copier and paper at 5 cents per page and used a sample file from the Social Services to determine the time spent and divided it by the number of pages....That cost resulted in a per copy cost given to the client of 57 cents. The total cost being 62 cents, which was rounded off to 60 cents per page....The Agency has been very careful not to charge individuals for separating public from non-public documents. As provided in Section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests copies of data about him/herself, a government entity may charge only the the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. However, as Mr. Odden stated, if documents contain data about multiple data subjects, it is the County's policy to additionally charge for separating those data. While the County is generally prohibited from releasing private and confidential data about one of its clients to anyone else (without consent), Chapter 13 does not contain any provision allowing an entity to recover the cost of separating data about the requestor from private or confidential data about other data subjects. Based on the information provided, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the remainder of the $0.60 per page fee (the portion not related to separating data about multiple data subjects) is in compliance with the requirements of Section 13.04, subdivision 3. However, to the extent the County charged for anything beyond the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies, it is out of compliance. In his opinion request, Mr. Nickitas raised another issue. He noted that pursuant to Minnesota Rules Sections 9500.2740, subpart 11, a local agency shall provide to an applicant, recipient, or authorized representative one free copy of each page relating to eligibility for or the assistance payment from the program. In addition, Section 9500.0130, subpart 4, requires a local agency to provide to the person, the person's authorized representative, or the person's guardian, one free of each page relating to the person's medical assistance application and eligibility. The Commissioner cannot determine if any of the data requested by Mr. Nickitas, on behalf of his client, are the kind of data described in Sections 9500.2740, subpart 11, and 9500.0130, subpart 4. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Nickitas is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: June 4, 1998 |
Multiple data subjects
Multiple data subjects
Public and not public data
