January 10, 1994; Steele County
1/10/1994 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 December 21, 1993, the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) received a request for an opinion from X. X is a recipient of services provided by the Steele County Department of Human Services, hereinafter Steele County . Enclosed with X's letter were a number of pieces of information. The facts X alleged in his request were as follows.On Wednesday, December 9, 1992, X went to Steele County and delivered a handwritten request for information. The request was stated as follows: We are at this time requesting copies of any and all information that may be in your file that has anything to do with us or our kids. This request was signed by X and his wife Y. X stated at the time he delivered his request, he was informed that Steele County could not get started on his request until Friday, December 11 and that providing the copies would take from 3 to 4 days. X waited until Friday, December 18, 1992. Because he still had not received the copies, he made a second written request on that date. The request stated that it was a second request and that Steele County had previously indicated that the copies would be made available in 4-5 days. In this second request, X and his wife specifically requested that they be able to see their file today . According to X, Steele County informed him that there was an illness in the office, that his request for copies could not be completed and that he could not see his file. X stated that on December 30, 1992, and January 9, 1992, he was at the Steele County office and delivered documents to them. (His statement of a date of January 9, 1992, is obviously a misstatement and he meant January 9, 1993.) In support of that statement, he provided copies of the documents that he delivered with received date stamps from Steel County. He states that he verbally asked for his file on February 3, 1992, (again it is clear he means 1993) and the files were not ready. He then states that he went to Steele County on February 5, 1993, to deliver copies, asked verbally for his file and the file was provided. He provided a copy of a receipt dated February 5, 1993, that indicates he paid Steele County $15.00 for copies made of the file. In response to X's request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner of Administration wrote to Stanley A. Groff, Director of the Steele County Human Services Department. The purposes of this letter, dated December 16, 1993, were to inform Steele County of X's request, to acquaint the County with the Commissioner's authority to issue opinions, to ask the County or its attorney to provide any information in support of the County's position and to inform the County of the date on which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. A copy of this letter was sent to Douglas Ruth, the Steele County Attorney. On January 6, 1994, PIPA received a letter of response from Mr. Groff. In that letter, Mr. Groff recited the history of Steele County's interaction with X and Y about their request for data. As to the various dates alleged by X and Y and to statements of requests for information and the County's response to those requests, Steele County's statements agrees with X and Y. However, after the agreement on dates, Steele County's view of what occurred, disagrees, to some extent, with the statements made by X. Mr. Groff stated that once the County received X's initial request that they had 10 working days (by virtue of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, Subdivision 3) to comply if they had good cause for not responding within five days. Mr. Groff stated that copies of the data were prepared for X and Y on December 19, 1992, and placed in a pick-up basket on that date. On the point of the long delay between this placement and the actual pickup of the data by X, Mr. Groff stated that it was not credible that X and Y were not informed the data were available for pickup because County personnel prepared the copies by working overtime on a Saturday to duplicate a lengthy file. He also pointed out that X . . . often confuses dates. He gave examples of that confusion.
Issue:
Although X's requests did not contain a formal statement of the issue for which he sought a Commissioner's opinion, the issue presented by his request can be stated as follows:
Discussion:
X's request and Steele County's response to that request are controlled by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3. Once the X and Y made their request to receive copies of private data about themselves, most data on individuals maintained by the welfare system is private as classified by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, it was the obligation of the responsible authority for the Steele County Human Services Department to respond within the following requirements. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.46, subdivision 10, makes Mr. Groff, on account of his position as Director, the responsible authority for his Department. If possible, Mr. Groff or his designee was required to provide X and Y with copies of the data immediately. If Mr. Groff were not able to respond to X and Y's request, he was required to inform X and Y that immediate compliance was not possible and that the he would provide the copies within five working days. If the copies could not be provided within the initial five day period, Mr. Groff was required to inform X and Y of that fact and then provide the copies of the data within the second five day period. (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.)
X's statement makes it clear that someone at Steele County told him that immediate compliance was not possible. Once X and Y were provided with that information, the MGDPA required that X and Y be provided with the copies no later than December 16, 1992. Contrary to Mr. Groff's statement, the County is not automatically afforded 10 working days to respond to a request by a data subject for copies of data. The County if required to provide copies immediately, if possible. If not possible, the copies are to be provided within five days and if the five day limit cannot be met, and if the data subject is informed that compliance within the initial five days is not possible, then and only then is the County able to take ten days to respond to a request. In this situation, someone at the County told X that immediate compliance was not possible and that work would be done to start the copying on the second day after his request and that the copying would take anywhere from three to four days. This accounts for the initial five day period. However, without a second notice to X and Y that compliance within the initial five days was not possible, the County was required to make the copies available to X and Y on December 16, 1992. The County did not do so. Both X and Y, and Steele County agree that X renewed his request to be provided with copies on December 18, 1992. X also stated that on that date he asked to inspect the private data maintained by the County. According to X, a County employee told him that was not possible. In his response, Mr. Groff did not discuss any actions taken by the County to respond to X's request to inspect the data. Access to inspect and receipt of copies are distinct rights that data subjects are given by the MGDPA. Once X made his request to inspect, Steele County should have had procedures in effect to deal with that request. It is X's view that he was actually not provided with the copies he requested until February 5, 1993, which is 39 working days after his initial request. It is Steele County's view, as expressed by Mr. Groff, that the data were provided on December 19, 1992 when they were placed in the pickup basket. Putting the position of the County in the best light, the copies would have been available for pickup by X on December 21, 1992. County offices must not have been open on December 19 as Mr. Groff describes the making of the copies as an overtime project. If X had picked up the copies on December 21, he would have actually received them eight working days after his request. This is beyond the time frame required by the MGDPA unless the County notifies a data subject of its inability to respond within the initial five days. The County has not provided any information that it did so. Putting the position taken by X in its most favorable light puts the County's actual delivery of the documents, on February 5, 1993, well outside even the 10 day time frame contemplated by the MGDPA. It also brings into question the procedures followed by the County in handling X's request. The MGDPA requires entities subject to it to provide copies of data to data subjects within set time frames. In this situation, the County is taking the position that it provided copies by putting those copies in a pickup basket. If it desires to use that technique, which presents other risks to the County discussed below, then the County's operating procedures ought to provide that the data subject be informed in some reasonable fashion that the materials he or she has requested are waiting for that person in the pickup basket. The County has not provided any information that this is the practice in the County. Steele County's position is that they had complied with the MGDPA when they placed the copies in the basket. However, X reports, and he provided copies of documents hand receipted in the County on December 30. 1992 and January 9, 1993, that he was at the office of Steele County on three other dates, and County personnel never called his attention to the materials waiting for him in the pickup basket. The legislature provided for data subject access to private and public data, and stated specific time frames for providing access, as an acknowledgement of the powerful effect of information on citizen's lives and how crucial it is in a variety of situations for citizens to gain access to data. In this situation, X was trying to gain access to information because he was having trouble securing benefits for his family. The interests of data subjects, as recognized by the legislature, requires that agencies establish procedures for providing access that go beyond placing copies of data in a pickup basket without notifying the data subject of the availability of the data. The use of a pickup basket also presents a potential security problem for Steele County. Among its data practices, the County is required to assure that all data on individuals is appropriately safeguarded. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 5.) In dealing with access to private data, entities subject to the MGDPA are required by the rules of the Department of Administration to assure that an individual who gains access to private data, because he or she identified him or herself as the data subject, is actually the subject of that private data. (See Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400.) As the subject of private data, X and Y have the right to not have that private data disclosed to the public, including disclosure to members of the public who visit Steele County offices and who may be able to view the contents of a pickup basket. These various requirements of the MGDPA and its rules are directly implicated by the County's use of the basket. The actual implications for the County will depend on how it actually controls access to the pickup basket. Opinion:Based on correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
Signed:
Debra Rae Anderson
Dated: January 10, 1994
|
