November 19, 1998; Hennepin County
11/19/1998 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 PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On September 23, 1998, IPA received a letter from F dated September 20, 1998. In his/her letter, F requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding access to data maintained by Hennepin County. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David Sanders, Director of the County's Children and Family Services Department. The purposes of this letter, dated October 2, 1998, were to inform him of F's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County's position. On October 14, 1998, IPA received comments, dated October 14, 1998, from Vicki Vial-Taylor, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney. A summary of the facts as presented by F is as follows. On August 30, 1996, F requested from Hennepin County, in person, access to data about him/her and his/her children. F's spouse (also the parent of F's children) also requested data in a form dated August 29, 1996. Approximately nine working days later, the County mailed a letter to F stating that the data were available. Three working days later, F received the County's letter; F's spouse then went to the County and retrieved the requested data. F alleges that the County did not respond to his/her request within the statutorily prescribed time frame.
Issue:
In his/her request for an advisory opinion, F asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity shall comply immediately, if possible, or within five working days of the date of the request. If the responsible authority is unable to comply within that time, it may take an additional five working days to respond, if the data requestor is so informed.
As part of his/her opinion request, F provided the Commissioner with a copy of a document entitled Hennepin County Request for and/or Consent for Release of Information. According to the form, F requested access to any and all information regarding himself/herself, his/her spouse, and his/her four children. The form is signed and dated August 30, 1996. F's spouse (also the parent of F's children) also requested data in a form dated August 29, 1996. F stated in his/her opinion request that s/he was notified, via a letter dated September 13, 1996, that the data were available and the cost would be $14. F did not receive this letter until September 18, 1996 (twelve working days after his/her request). Ms. Vial-Taylor stated that for two reasons, the County was unable to immediately comply with F's request. She first asserted that the request was ambiguous. Ms. Vial-Taylor wrote that because F signed the line on the form that states I wish to withhold information about [F], the agency was uncertain whether [F] wished to access information about [his/her] family and excluding [himself/herself], or whether [his/her] signature on the withholding' line was inadvertent. She added, Thus, the agency records management staff needed to consult with the active case worker in order to determine the nature of the request. Vagueness of a request does not negate a government entity's obligation under Section 13.04 to respond within five to ten working days. Furthermore, in this case, if County staff felt F's request was unclear, they could have asked F for clarification. The second reason the County was unable to immediately comply was that the physical documents in the file were needed by at least three different workers within the agency. Ms. Vial-Taylor wrote, [t]here were a number of separate staff members who needed the same documents on the same days in order to perform their job functions. It simply took some time to coordinate the sharing of the file within the county agency. Pursuant to Section 13.04, the County was required to respond to F's request within five to ten working days; the fact that the documents were not contained in one central file or that files were needed by separate staff to perform job functions does not absolve the County of its statutory obligation. Finally, Ms. Vial-Taylor acknowledged that the County's response time did not meet the statutory requirement of five days, as there is no documentation that the county agency formally requested an extension. However, she added that although the County inadvertently overlooked the request for an extension, it did respond within ten working days. The problem with Ms. Vial-Taylor's argument is that technically, under Section 13.04, a government entity can take the additional five days to comply only if it so notifies the requestor. In this case, the County did not notify F that it required the additional time; therefore, it did not respond in a timely manner. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by F is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: November 19, 1998 |
