September 27, 2007; Stearns County
9/27/2007 10:15:43 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 July 23, 2007, IPAD received a letter dated July 11, 2007, from X. In the letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of data about X by Stearns County. IPAD requested additional information, which X provided on August 8, 2007. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Roma Steil, Director of Stearns County Human Services, in response to X's request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 10, 2007, were to inform her of X's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County's position. On September 4, 2007, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Scott Anderson and Sonya Guggemos, attorneys representing the County. A summary of the facts as provided by X is as follows. In his/her opinion request, X wrote: . . . Stearns County set up a Family Group Decision Making Conference for my [child] . . . At this meeting one of the papers given out was [my] Parneting [sic] Assessment . . . handed out by [a Stearns County social worker]. [I] told [the social worker] that she shouldn't be giving that out. [The social worker] told me she could and handed it out to the rest of the people. [X noted that there were approximately 15 people at the conference-many of them family members.] [Later] I called [the social worker's supervisor] and left her a message about what [the social worker] had done. [About a month later] I received a letter from the [Supervisor] saying they were checking into the matter . . . Then . . . I received telephone calls from [4 family members who attended the conference] telling that [County staff] had called them and told them to send the Parneting [sic] Assessment back to Stearns County. Then I received a call from [County staff] asking me if I gave [the social worker] permission to hand out the Parneting [sic] Assessment and I told him no. . . . X also noted that the parenting assessment was ordered by the County regarding an issue about the custody of X's child and was conducted by a licensed psychologist.
Issue:
Based on X's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Data in the parenting assessment that Stearns County created are classified by section 13.46, welfare data. Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 13.46, such data are private. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, private data are accessible to the data subject and those within the government entity who need the data to do their work. Private data may not be disclosed to other individuals unless there is specific statutory authority or the data subject has given written informed consent for the release of the data. Mr. Anderson and Ms. Guggemos attached to their comments an affidavit from the County social worker regarding the family conference. Mr. Anderson and Ms. Guggemos wrote: . . . we note a couple of important things. First, there was a written release that was obtained from X to release information to the group invited to the meeting. As noted in the affidavit of [the social worker], however, the County has not been able to locate that release. As an aside, we would note that the County is concerned about the apparent misplacement of this release. It is intending to conduct an internal audit pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.392 as part of a process to ensure this doesn't happen again. Notwithstanding, as [the social worker indicates], X gave verbal authorization at the meeting for the release and sharing of the parenting assessment . . . Because of this, the County vigorously disagrees with the statements that X is making at this time that there was no consent to release the information in question. Mr. Anderson and Ms. Guggemos attached to their comments a blank copy of the informed consent document. In her affidavit, the social worker wrote: 9. Prior to the start of [the conference], I gave X a copy of [the consent form] which listed the names and addresses of those individuals who had been invited to attend the Conference. This form explained that some of the information to be discussed at the meeting could be considered private and/or protected and by signing, the individual was knowingly waiving any rights to keep that information confidential in the course of the [conference]. I gave X the form to sign because the discussion at the meeting would concern custody of X's [child] and X was the custodial parent. X signed the [release form] in my presence. 10. I placed the signed [consent form] in the County's case file after [the conference]. When the file was reviewed by [Stearns County Human Services] following X's complaint, they were unable to locate the signed form. . . . There is a factual dispute the Commissioner is unable to resolve. In X's opinion request, X states s/he told the social worker that she shouldn't be disclosing the assessment at the conference. Conversely, the social worker states, in her affidavit, that X signed a release form in her presence. If X did not sign a release form indicating that the County could release the data in the assessment, the County inappropriately released the data. If X did sign a release form indicating the County could release the data in the assessment, the County appropriately released the data. The Commissioner adds the following comments. In situations where either a government entity or a data subject wishes to share private data with another person, and there is no statutory authority to do so, the data subject must sign a written informed consent. (See Minnesota Rules 1205.1400.) Before signing an informed consent, the data subject should read the consent document so s/he knows what data the entity will be releasing and to whom. If the data subject is unable to determine what data the entity will release, s/he should ask the entity to clarify. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
Signed:
Dana B. Badgerow
Dated: September 27, 2007 |
