February 10, 1994; City of Minneapolis
2/10/1994 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 January 21, 1994, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from Mr. Mark R. Anfinson. Mr. Anfinson is the attorney for City Pages, a newspaper published in Minneapolis. According to Mr. Anfinson, City Pages recently asked the Minneapolis Public Housing Agency, hereinafter MPHA , an agency of the city of Minneapolis, for a list of the addresses of all real property owned by the MPHA. This request was denied and the MPHA cited Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, benefit data .Mr. Anfinson then discussed his view of the position of the MPHA that disclosure of addresses of property owned by the MPHA could identify housing recipients of benefits. Mr. Anfinson stated that it was his client's contention that this possibility of identifying benefit recipients is not sufficient to make the addresses data on individuals as that term is defined in the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter MGDPA . After emphasizing that his client is not seeking the identities of residents, Mr. Anfinson requested an opinion on the issue stated below. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration, wrote to Ms. Cora McCarvey, Executive Director of the MPHA. The purposes of this letter, dated January 24, 1994, were to inform Ms. McCarvey of Mr. Anfinson's request, to acquaint her with the authority of the Commissioner of Administration to issue opinions, to ask the MPHA or its attorney to provide any information in support of its position and to inform her of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On February 4, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from Ms. Mary G. Dobbins, who identified herself as the attorney for the MPHA. It was her position that City Pages had requested the addresses of what she called scattered site houses. The acquisition of single family homes throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area and offering those homes for rent to low income families is the product of policies of both the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and MHFA. One objective of these policies is to disburse, i.e. scatter , subsidized housing throughout the metropolitan area. Ms. Dobbins then discussed Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, the benefit data section of the MGDPA, that classifies as private all data on MPHA tenants. It was Ms. Dobbins opinion that this classification must include the addresses of scattered site houses because individuals who are receiving benefits can be identified from the street address information. Ms. Dobbins summarized the provisions of the MGDPA that make it clear that this data on addresses qualifies for treatment of data on individuals if the data in question can be used to identify an individual. According to her, classifying the specific addresses of scattered site housing as public data would identify the tenants of the houses at those addresses as public housing tenants thereby denying them the protection for data about them that is provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31. She indicated a willingness on the part of her client to provide summary or descriptive data about the general locations of scattered site houses without revealing specific addresses.
Issue:
In his request, Mr. Anfinson stated the issue to be addressed by the Commissioner's opinion as follows:
Discussion:
First, it should be noted that Mr. Anfinson's statement of the issue and his discussion of the request made by City Pages to the MPHA address a broader topic than the topic discussed by Ms. Dobbins in her response. Mr. Anfinson states that City Pages has asked the MPHA to release the address of all real property owned by the MPHA. Ms. Dobbins only discussed the effect of the release of address data concerning scattered site housing owned by the MPHA. Neither Ms. Dobbins nor Mr. Anfinson provided the text of the actual request made by City Pages. This opinion will deal with the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson.
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31 is captioned as benefit data in the MGDPA. Benefit data is defined as . . . data on individuals collected or created because an individual seeks information about becoming is, or was an applicant for or a recipient of benefits or services provided under various housing, home ownership, and rehabilitation . . . administered by state agencies, political subdivisions, or statewide systems. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, subdivision 1.) Except for certain data about individuals who seek and receive assistance to purchase housing or other real property, all benefit data are private data on individuals. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.31, subdivision 3.) For purposes of the MGDPA, the term data on individuals is defined, in relevant part, as follows: Data on individuals' means all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, . . . . The part of the definition that talks about government data being able to identify an individual as the subject of certain data reflects an understanding by the legislature that in some instances, while government data in and of itself does not directly identify a specific individual by using the individual's name or other unique personal identifier, the very nature of the data can still identify an individual and associate that individual with data that is required to be maintained as not public. An example, relative to this particular situation, illustrates the issue. If a member of the public went to the MPHA and asked to receive the names and addresses of tenants in housing owned by the MPHA, Section 13.31 would operate to prevent lawful disclosure of that data by the MPHA. This request would clearly be a request for private government data that identifies an individual. If that same member of the public returned to the MPHA a week later and made a request to receive the addresses of properties owned by the MPHA and used for public housing, no data is being requested that directly identifies public housing tenants. However, upon the receipt of the addresses, the requestor would be provided with data from which individual identities, names and so forth of public housing tenants, could be established. In such an instance, the legislature's intent to classify benefit data as private data would become meaningless. Given the definitions of benefit data and data on individuals as discussed above, it is appropriate for the MPHA to consider addresses of scattered site house owned by the agency as data that can identify recipients of housing benefits and therefore private data under the MGDPA. For the MPHA to do otherwise could subject it to potential liability under the MGDPA. If data on scattered site housing addresses were released to the public by MPHA, housing benefit recipients identified through that release of data could assert a cause of action against the MPHA. The threat of a possible lawsuit is designed into the MGDPA as part of its overall framework of requiring agency compliance. In this instance, the MPHA is attempting to avoid that risk by a reasonable judgement that the scattered site housing address in the possession of the MPHA are private data that cannot be made available to the public. Although this discussion clarifies the treatment of scattered site housing addresses by the MPHA, it appears that Mr. Anfinson's client asked for the addresses of all real property owned by the MPHA. The information submitted by Mr. Anfinson and Ms. Dobbins does not make it clear what types of real property that the MPHA owns that are not parcels of property used for scattered site housing. To the extent that the MPHA owns other real property, and if data about the addresses of those pieces of property would not reveal the identifies of recipients of housing benefits, then the addresses of those properties should be public data because there is no classification other than public for data about those properties. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
Debra Rae Anderson
Dated: February 10, 1994
|
Welfare data
Benefit data
Indirect identification of individuals
