February 26, 1999; Freeborn County
2/26/1999 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 January 8, 1999, IPA received a letter from Charles H. Thomas, an attorney representing L. In his letter, Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding L's right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Freeborn County Department of Human Services. Mr. Thomas enclosed copies of related correspondence. In response to Mr. Thomas's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ted Laird, Supervisor of Freeborn County Social Services. The purposes of this letter, dated January 15, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Thomas's request, and to ask him to provide information or support for Freeborn County's position. On January 22, 1999, IPA received a response from Chris Amdahl, Financial Assistance Supervisor for Freeborn County DHS. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. In a letter faxed to Ms. Amdahl on November 30, 1998, Mr. Thomas's office requested access to all data generated by the County in connection with L's appeal of the County's decision to disqualify L from future receipt of public assistance benefits. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 256.045, subdivision 3.) There are references in this letter to earlier requests for access to the data to which the County had not responded. The request for access to all data generated by the County included a specific request for duplicates of any audiotapes or transcripts of the tapes. In a letter dated December 1, 1998, Ms. Amdahl responded: [t]his letter is to let you know that we will not be providing you with a transcript of the tape recording (s) that occurred in this matter at this time. A summary was prepared and submitted to you. . . . In a letter faxed to Ms. Amdahl on December 2, 1998, Mr. Thomas objected to the County's denial of access to all data it maintains on L and repeated the request. Mr. Thomas further requested, pursuant to sections 13.04 and 13.03, that the County inform L of whether s/he is the subject of stored data, how those data are classified, and under what specific statutory provision the County is denying L access to the data. Mr. Thomas cited provisions of federal law and Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 3(c), in support of his position that L is entitled to all data generated by the County in connection with its investigation. In a letter dated December 7, 1998, Ms. Amdahl wrote that she was sending a transcript of one taped interview. She wrote that an earlier interview was not tape recorded. Ms. Amdahl did not provide any other data about L. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Amdahl stated that the County has provided a summary of contacts and conversations in the matter of the investigation of client L' by a Fraud Prevention Investigator. Ms. Amdahl further stated that a transcript of the only tape recording the County maintains was provided in response to Mr. Thomas's December 2, 1998 request. Ms. Amdahl said that, contrary to her earlier understanding, other tape recordings had been erased or taped over prior to the initial request for data. Transcripts of those recordings were not made and are not available as stored' data. The Agency has no further information which it can be considered to have withheld. According to Ms. Amdahl, the County has instructed its contractor to retain all future tape recordings that are made and that they are to be archived for future use. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Thomas asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, [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. Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, If the responsible authority or designee determines that the requested data is classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the responsible authority or designee shall inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon after that time as possible, and shall cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. Upon the request of any person denied access to data, the responsible authority or designee shall certify in writing that the request has been denied and cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based. Therefore, upon Mr. Thomas's request, the County was obligated to cite the specific statutory provision upon which it based its denial of access to data, pursuant to sections 13.04 and 13.03. In general, data on individuals collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system [including Freeborn County DHS] are private data. (See section 13.46, subdivision 2.) In some instances, data collected by a welfare department during an investigation that is authorized by statute and relating to the enforcement of rules or law are confidential. However, those investigative data are required to be disclosed to a party named in a civil or criminal proceeding, administrative or judicial, for preparation of defense. (See section 13.46, subdivision 3 (c).) Mr. Thomas was seeking access to all data maintained about L by the County at least in part to prepare for an administrative proceeding. Accordingly, Mr. Thomas should have been given access to all of the private data the County maintains on L, as well as the otherwise confidential data generated in its investigation of L's eligibility to receive public assistance benefits. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Amdahl referred to a summary of certain data that was provided, and otherwise addressed only the issue of L's right to gain access to a transcript of the audio taped interview. She did state that the County has no other information responsive to L's request. However, Mr. Thomas questions whether L has gained access to all of the data, including investigative data, that the County maintains about L. L is entitled to gain access to all of the data the County maintains about L, including all data generated in its investigation. Ms. Amdahl stated that a tape recording of interview(s) conducted during the County's investigation of L were erased or taped over. Chapter 13 does not govern retention of government data, but other provisions of statute do so. Section 15.17, subdivision 1, provides: [a]ll officers and agencies of the state . . . shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Pursuant to Chapter 138, government entities may dispose of government records only as provided by that Chapter. (See section 138.163.) Pursuant to section 138.17, government entities must seek the approval of the Records Disposition Panel before they may dispose of government records. Pursuant to section 138.17, subdivision 1, government records are defined to include all . . . data, information, or documentary material . . . made or received by an officer or agency of the state . . . pursuant to state law or in connection with the transaction of public business by an officer or agency . . . . Ms. Amdahl acknowledged that the County should have retained the audiotape, and that it has taken steps to ensure that in the future it will do so. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Thomas is as follows:
Signed:
Scott R. Simmons
Dated: February 26, 1999 |
Data subjects
Informed of existence/classification
Investigative data
