July 15, 2024; Minnesota Department of Human Services
7/15/2024 12:00:00 PM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2023). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
X (a pseudonym used according to section 13.072, subdivision 4) requested an advisory opinion about his rights regarding the Department of Human Services’ response to a challenge to the accuracy and completeness of data about him. X made this challenge under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivisions 4 and 4a, and the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) maintained the challenged data. DHS operates MSOP, and DHS’ legal counsel provided comments on its behalf.
A summary of the facts is as follows:
On February 20, 2024, X submitted a challenge contesting the accuracy and completeness of data that MSOP maintained about him to the program’s executive director under section 13.04, subds. 4 and 4a. In a letter dated March 1, the executive director confirmed that she had received X’s challenge on February 29 and wrote that the challenge was under review.
In a letter dated March 29, the executive director informed X that MSOP was “extending this investigation of data until April 12, 2024.”
On April 20, X wrote to the executive director to notify her that he had not yet received a response to his data challenge, adding that he believed the law required MSOP to respond to his challenge within 30 days.
On May 6, X received a letter from the executive director, which was dated April 12, that indicated MSOP was further extending its investigation until April 29.
On May 13, X received a letter from the executive director that provided a determination on the accuracy and completeness of the data he had challenged. The letter was dated April 29, and the executive director’s digital signature was dated May 6.
Based on the opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue: Did the Department of Human Services comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, when it extended a deadline to respond to X’s challenge to the accuracy and completeness of data maintained by the Minnesota Sex Offender Program? |
Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 5(a)(1) requires each responsible authority of a government entity to “establish procedures to assure that all data on individuals is accurate, complete, and current for the purposes for which it was collected.”
Meanwhile, section 13.04, subdivision 4 provides individuals with the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data about themselves that a government entity maintains.
To exercise this right, individuals must notify the appropriate government entity official that they believe specific data maintained by the entity are inaccurate or incomplete and describe the nature of their disagreement with the data’s content.
(Note: Section 13.04, subdivision 4a requires an individual disputing the accuracy and completeness of data maintained by MSOP to submit the challenge to the data practices compliance official of DHS, and this official must respond to the challenge as required by section 13.04, subd. 4. The MSOP executive director’s correspondence to X indicates she is serving as the data practices compliance official for the purposes of section 13.04, subd. 4a.)
Section 13.04, subdivision 4(c) states:
Upon receiving notification from the data subject, the responsible authority shall within 30 days either:
(1) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or
(2) notify the individual that the responsible authority has determined the data to be correct. If the challenged data are determined to be accurate or complete, the responsible authority shall inform the individual of the right to appeal the determination to the commissioner as specified under paragraph (d). Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual’s statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data. (Emphasis added.)
In short, section 13.04, subd. 4(c) requires a responsible authority to respond to a data challenger within 30 days by either correcting challenged data or notifying the individual that the entity has determined the challenged data are correct. The plain language of the statute does not provide an entity with the power to extend this 30-day deadline.
Here, DHS confirmed it received X’s challenge on February 29, 2024, in its March 1 letter to him. The calculated 30-day deadline to respond would have fallen on Saturday, March 30, but Minnesota Statutes, section 645.15 notes that when the last day of a statutorily imposed deadline “falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, that day shall be omitted from the computation.” Therefore, the deadline for DHS to respond to X’s data challenge was Monday, April 1.
However, DHS twice informed X it was delaying its response without reference to any statutory authority that permits such an extension. DHS did not provide a determination on X’s data challenge until it sent a letter dated April 29, signed on May 6, and received by X on May 13. All these dates were beyond the April 1 deadline as required by section 13.04, subd. 4(c).
In its response, DHS requested that the Commissioner not issue an advisory opinion because of her longstanding practice of declining to issue an opinion when the applicable matter is pending before a court or is the subject of a judge’s order or decision.
X currently has an appeal before the Commitment Appeal Panel (CAP), which was established by the Minnesota Supreme Court under Minnesota Statutes, section 253B.19, subdivision 1. Section 13.072, subdivision 1(c) gives the Commissioner the authority to decline an advisory opinion request within five business days of receipt, or, if she does not, she must issue an opinion. A requester may withdraw a request for an opinion at any time. X did not withdraw his request and therefore the Commissioner is obligated to issue this opinion.
Further, the Commissioner is unaware of any authority that would allow the CAP to extend the statutory deadline required by section 13.04, subd. 4(c), nor does it appear that the timing of DHS’ determination is at issue in X’s CAP proceeding. Thus, this opinion is unaffected by the appeal before the CAP, and this opinion does not reach any conclusion on whether the data at issue in those proceedings are accurate and complete.
As a result, DHS did not comply with the requirements of section 13.04, subd. 4 when it extended the amount of time it would take to respond to X’s data challenge and failed to provide X with a determination about the accuracy and completeness of data within 30 days.
Lastly, DHS may want to review its internal procedures required by section 13.05, subd. 5(a)(1) to ensure that “all data on individuals is accurate, complete, and current for the purposes for which it was collected.” If DHS cannot meet the 30-day deadline to respond to a data challenge in the future, it may also be failing to meet its obligations under section 13.05, subd. 5.
Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:
The Department of Human Services did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, when it extended a deadline to respond to X’s challenge to the accuracy and completeness of data maintained by the Minnesota Sex Offender Program.
Signed:
Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner
July 15, 2024
Data subjects
Challenge accuracy and completeness of data
Data subjects (13.04)