Note: The Minnesota Supreme Court in Burks v. Metropolitan Council, No. A14-1651 (Minn. Aug. 24, 2016), held that data subjects have the right to access data about themselves, even if the data in question identify private data on other individuals.

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:

On November 17, 1994, PIPA received a letter, dated November 10, 1994, from Sangeeta Jain, an attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, on behalf of her client, X. Ms. Jain's letter included a discussion of Legal Aid's attempts to obtain certain child support and collections data about X maintained by Hennepin County. Also in this letter, Ms. Jain requested an opinion from the Commissioner on the issues stated in the Issues section below.

In response to Ms. Jain's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mr. Barry Bloomgren, Manager of Hennepin County's Collection Services Division. The purposes of this letter, dated November 18, 1994, were to inform Mr. Bloomgren of Ms. Jain's 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 December 2, 1994, PIPA received a 16-page response via FAX from Mr. Bloomgren. Included in this response was a statement from Mr. Bloomgren and a chronological statement prepared by Ms. Casey White, a supervisor in Hennepin County Collection Services Division (CSD). It should be noted that the fact situation presented by Hennepin County differs significantly from that presented by Ms. Jain.

Also included in the response from Mr. Bloomgren, was a copy of a memo dated August 26, 1994, to all CSD staff regarding Legal Aid Requests for Case Information; a copy of a letter sent to X dated April 17, 1994; a copy of the court order for child support issued to the father of X's child; and a copy of a letter dated November 30, 1994, to Legal Aid which appears to contain the sought-after data.

A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. According to Ms. Jain, on June 4, 1993, Monica Burczek, an attorney with Legal Aid, contacted Hennepin County CSD, and spoke with Ms. Deb Lubintine and requested a breakdown of the child support paid in X's case by the father of X's child, retroactive to the child's date of the birth (DOB). Ms. Burczek indicated that she would obtain a consent to release of information from X.

Ms. White's statement indicates that Hennepin County has no record of this contact.

Ms. Jain reports that on June 14, 1993, a letter requesting accounting of any child support enforcement activities since the child's DOB along with a consent to release information was FAXed to CSD. A copy of this letter and the release was included in Ms. Jain's opinion request. (PIPA notes that the date affixed to the copy of the letter it received is June 11, 1993.) Legal Aid reports they received no response from Hennepin County.

According to Ms. White, Ms. Lubotina received the FAX, contacted Ms. Burczek to get further clarification regarding the letter, and then requested that Ms. Burczek provide a written statement of exactly what information she was seeking. (There is a dispute over the spelling of Ms. Lubotina's name. Because she is an employee of Hennepin County, the Commissioner will assume Hennepin County's spelling is correct.)

According to Legal Aid, on July 6, 1993, Ms. Burczek again wrote to CSD specifically requesting a copy of all information on the child support received on X's behalf and how the child support was disbursed retroactive to the child's DOB. PIPA received a copy of this letter. Legal Aid reports no response from Hennepin County. According to Ms. White, Hennepin County has no record of this correspondence nor does Ms. Lubotina recall receiving such a letter.

On July 29, 1993, according to Legal Aid, Ms. Burczek contacted Ms. Lubotina and left a message requesting that a time be arranged when X's file could be examined and its contents discussed. Legal Aid reports no response from Hennepin County. According to Ms. White, Hennepin County has no record of this message nor does Ms. Lubotina recall receiving such a message.

On November 3, 1993, according to Legal Aid, Ms. Burczek called Ms. Lubotina and left a message. Ms. Lubotina returned the message and stated that accounting information would be provided by the week of November 15, 1993. Legal Aid reports that no such information was sent by the County.

According to Ms. White, Ms. Burczek requested accounting information and copies of all notices generated to X. Ms. Lubotina explained that some notices are sent directly from the State Office of Child Support and Enforcement and that accounting information is contained on the state's computer system. She indicated to Ms. Burczek that the requested accounting information would be forwarded in two weeks. Because Ms. Lubotina had questions about releasing some of this information, Ms. White referred her to the County Attorney's office.

According to Ms. White, on November 4, 1993, Ms. Lubotina attempted to get a county attorney to review the issues but no one was available.

According to Ms. White, on December 2, 1993, Ms. Lubotina discussed the situation with Ms. Gray-Larson, Assistant County Attorney, who was then to handle the case.

According to Legal Aid, on January 6, 1994, Ms. Burczek contacted Ms. Lubotina and left a message.

Ms. White reports that their records do not reflect a message or contacts on that date.

On January 14, 1994, according to Ms. White, Ms. Burczek left a voice mail message inquiring as to when she would be receiving the information. Ms. Lubotina returned the call and left a message detailing the discussions she had had with Ms. Gray-Larson and noted there must be some miscommunication since Ms. Burczek had not yet received a response. Ms. Lubotina also left Ms. Gray-Larson's phone number. Ms. Lubotina then contacted Ms. Gray-Larson who took the file to call Ms. Burczek.

Legal Aid notes that sometime in January of 1994, Ms. Gray-Larson returned Ms. Burczek's call and left a message.

On February 7, 1994, Legal Aid states that Ms. Burczek returned Ms. Gray-Larson's call and was informed that the requested information would not be provided. Further, Ms. Gray-Larson indicated the County's policy is that all child support information are private data including the amount received, the date child support was received, the account number, and the effective date of the child support order. In addition, data would not be disclosed unless both parties, including the payor and payee, sign a release of information form. According to Legal Aid, Ms. Burczek responded that the requested information did not require a release since she was not seeking the Social Security number or employer information of the payor. Rather, she was requesting information on the amount of child support received, when the support was received, the date of collection, and when any pass-through's were paid to X. Ms. Gray-Larson indicated she would review the procedures and would get back to Ms. Burczek.

According to Ms. White, there is no record of this conversation on file.

Ms. White notes that on February 18, 1994, Ms. Gray-Larson requested payment printouts (state computer system printouts) which were compiled and forwarded to Ms. Gray-Larson by Ms. Lubotina.

Both the County and Legal Aid agree that a letter dated February 23, 1994, was sent from Ms. Gray-Larson to Ms. Burczek. However, Legal Aid states that most of the information was provided in computer jargon, was not understandable, and did not include all information requested. Specifically, it did not provide information regarding the date of receipt, the date of collection, and how monies were disbursed.

Legal Aid notes that a letter dated March 28, 1994, was sent to Ms. Gray-Larson indicating that additional information was needed. Specifically requested was a breakdown of how monies were distributed and to what monies X was entitled. Legal Aid states that the County then contacted Ms. Burczek and told her to contact a county attorney in the child support division for the information requested.

Hennepin County notes that it has no record on file of the March 28, 1994, correspondence.

Legal Aid then notes that on May 20, 1994, Ms. Jain discussed X's case along with other issues with Mr. Robert Distad, head of the County Attorney's Child Support Division. He indicated that the County Attorney's office could not provide the requested information and that any request needed to be directed to the Collections Division.

Hennepin County states that they have no record of a contact by Ms. Jain on this date.

PIPA is aware of one final contact between Hennepin County and Legal Aid regarding X's case. Attached to the response from Mr. Bloomgren was a letter, dated November 30, 1994, from Ms. White to Ms. Jean Lastine, the managing attorney at Legal Aid of Minneapolis. In that letter, Ms. White states she is responding to the voice mail message Ms. Lastine left in response to Ms. White's phone call of the day before. Ms. White apologizes for taking so long to respond and notes that her office had referred this case to the County Attorney's office for clarification regarding data. Ms. White goes on to say they had assumed that Legal Aid had received a response to its request. It also appears that Ms. White, in this letter, provides the data which Legal Aid has been requesting for quite some time.

Issues:

Discussion:

In that advisory opinion, the Commissioner stated, ...[the custodial parent] is asking for the source data, either public data not on individuals about the county and how it 'pays' itself over the course of CSC's [Ramsey County Attorney's Office of Child Support and Collections] relationship with [the parent] or private data about herself and the course of that relationship, that CSC uses to produce or prepare account reviews or monthly statements. This kind of data not on individuals maintained by the welfare system is [are] public data. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.03, subdivision 1, and 13.46, subdivision 6.)

Also in Advisory Opinion 94-017, the Commissioner clarified that the custodial parent has the right to gain access to any private data maintained about her by Ramsey County: ...Under the MGDPA [Minnesota Government Data Practices Act], [the parent] has the right to gain access to all private or public data maintained about her by CSC...To the extent that CSC maintains private data about her...[the parent] has the right under Section 13.04 of the MGDPA to gain access to that data.

In X's case, although the County does not so state, it seems that the data collected and maintained about her are classified under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, as welfare data. According to subdivision 2, data on individuals maintained by the welfare system are, with certain exceptions, classified as private data. Private data, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12, are not public and are accessible to the individual subject of that data. Therefore, if the County is maintaining any private data about X, she has the right to gain access to that data.

In the same vein, any private data collected and maintained by the County about the father of X's child would be accessible only to him and not to X. Such data might include his Social Security number, his address, his place of work, etc.

Further, if the County is maintaining any data not on individuals, those data are classified as public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 6. Public data are accessible to anyone, including X.

The second issue raised by Ms. Jain is whether Hennepin County violated provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 by taking several months to respond to Legal Aid's request. According to Legal Aid, the initial request was made in June of 1993 and was not responded to until February of 1994. At that point, a subsequent request was made and no answer was received. According to Hennepin County, the request was not clarified until November of 1993 and after CSD sent the request to the County Attorney's office, someone responded in February of 1994. The County has no record of the follow-up request but did issue what appears to be a response, in a letter dated November 30, 1994.

On the issue of timely responses to requests for access to data, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205 are quite clear. When a citizen is seeking access to data maintained about her\himself, Section 13.04 states that, ...The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request pursuant to this subdivision, or within 5 days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. If unable to comply with the request within that time, the responsible authority shall so inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. If the data sought by X are data about her, then Hennepin County had, at the maximum, ten days (excluding weekends and legal holidays) in which to respond. In this case, the County took, at the minimum, over three months to respond to the initial request.

When a citizen is seeking access to public data, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300, Subpart 3, states that, ...the responsible authority shall provide for a response to a request for access within a reasonable time. In addition, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 2, states that, The responsible authority...shall establish procedures...to ensure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.... If the data sought by X are public data, then Hennepin County is required to respond to her request within a reasonable time and in an appropriate and prompt manner. In this instance, a response after three or more months is not reasonable, prompt or appropriate.

There is one additional comment to be made regarding the issue of a timely response. In early November of 1993, according to Hennepin County, Ms. Lubotina began seeking assistance from the County Attorney's office. Ms. White's statement indicates her office was unsure as to, whose data is this? The County Attorney's office did not respond to Legal Aid until either January or February of 1994.

This sequence of events seems to suggest that CSD staff do not have a clear understanding of the classifications assigned to the particular pieces of data they collect and which pieces of data can be released to whom. It is conceivable that CSD staff might wish to contact an attorney for clarification but that does not justify taking more time to respond or responding in an incomplete fashion.

Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0800 describe some of the duties of the responsible authority. Section 13.05, Subdivision 1, states that, The responsible authority shall prepare a public document containing...a description of each category of record, file, or process relating to private or confidential data on individuals.... Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0800 is even more to the point, ...the responsible authority shall review and identify all of the types of data maintained by the entity...determine what types of data maintained by the entity are classified as private or confidential. Hennepin County clearly has a duty under Minnesota law to understand what types of data it collects, how those data should be classified, and to whom those data can be disseminated.

The third issue Ms. Jain asked the Commissioner to address is whether Hennepin County violated provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 by not providing all the information requested by Legal Aid.

In looking at the facts as presented by Ms. Jain, it appears that specific requests for specific information were made to Hennepin County. When the County asked for clarification regarding the initial request, Ms. Burczek of Legal Aid did respond with that information in a letter dated July 6, 1993. Ms. Burczek's letter states, ...X would like a copy of all child support received and how the child support was disbursed. While Ms. White and Ms. Lubotina stated they have no record of this correspondence, a copy of the letter was provided to PIPA in Ms. Jain's opinion request.

Although Hennepin County has no record of the aforementioned letter, a phone conversation occurred on November 3, 1993, during which Ms. Burczek requested, accounting information and copies of all notices generated to [X]. Because Ms. Lubotina did not request additional clarification, it seems reasonable to conclude that Hennepin County and Legal Aid were in agreement as to what data were being sought.

But, according to Ms. Jain, when Ms. Burczek received the requested information from Ms. Gray-Larson of the County Attorney's office on February 23, 1994, it was, written in computer jargon, was not understandable and did not include all the information requested. It failed to provide information regarding the date of receipt, the date of collection, and how monies were disbursed. Legal Aid sent a letter to that effect to Ms. Gray Larson dated March 28, 1994, and never received a response. Again, Ms. White and Ms. Lubotina stated they have no record of this correspondence and again, a copy of the letter was provided to PIPA in Ms. Jain's opinion request.

Putting aside the factual disagreement about whether Hennepin County received these letters, the real issue is whether Hennepin County's February 23, 1994, response included the requested information and whether the information was comprehensible. According to the those working on behalf of the data subject, the answer to both questions is no. Not only was the information incomplete, but it was provided in a format which appears to be difficult to comprehend. Interestingly, in the County's November 30, 1994, letter, the information was presented in a manner which seems to be much easier to understand.

When a data subject requests access to view or make copies of data about which s/he is the subject or data which are public, under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, the government entity is required to meet certain obligations. It must, upon request, show a data subject the data which the entity maintains about her/him and must inform the data subject of the content and meaning of the data (Section 13.04, Subdivision 3). In addition, upon request, it must permit a person to inspect and copy public government data and must inform the person of the data's meaning (Section 13.03, Subdivision 3).

Clearly, if Hennepin County is producing computer reports that are incomprehensible to a person seeking access to government data, it has a duty to explain the contents of those reports to those who request and receive access to the data. In addition, it is obligated to provide public data or private data it maintains about a data subject as requested. In this situation, it appears that Hennepin County met neither of these responsibilities, until November 30, 1994.

Opinion: