To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
August 2, 2000; Ramsey County
8/2/2000 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 IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On April 20, 2000, IPA received a letter dated April 14, 2000, from X. In his/her letter, X asserted that Ramsey County had violated his/her rights under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and requested an advisory opinion. IPA staff requested that X clarify his/her request, which X did in a letter dated May 4, 2000. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tom Fashingbauer, Director of the Ramsey County Community Human Services Department, in response to X's request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 26, 2000, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County's position. On June 7, 2000, IPA received a response, dated same, from Gary Davis, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney. A summary of the facts is as follows. In 1994, X and his/her spouse were divorced. X and his/her spouse were awarded joint legal custody but X's spouse was awarded sole physical custody of the children. The Divorce Decree granted X supervised visitation rights. In August 1996, X petitioned the Family Court for unsupervised visitation. In November 1996, the Family Court denied X's motion and appointed Ramsey Community Corrections Department, Domestic Relations unit, to evaluate, mediate or conduct visitation supervision. In April 1997, a court referee ordered that Domestic Relations' supervisory authority terminate on November 27, 1997. On December 4, 1997, a court referee issued an order continuing visitation supervision until November 27, 1998. In May 1998, a court referee ordered a psychological evaluation of X and the children, pursuant to recommendations made by Domestic Relations staff. Pursuant to the order, a licensed psychologist employed by the Ramsey County Mental Health Center, interviewed X. The psychologist issued her report on July 28, 1998. On February 2, 2000, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, X renewed an earlier challenge to the accuracy and/or completeness of data contained in the psychological evaluation. This letter was addressed to Mr. Fashingbauer. At Mr. Fashingbauer's request, on March 17, 2000, X met with Donald Mockenhaupt, Division Director, Ramsey County Community Services Department. Mr. Mockenhaupt did not respond to X's challenge but informed X that the report was a product of the judiciary and not subject to Chapter 13. X then requested an opinion. Note: Mr. Davis, in his response to the Commissioner, wrote: ...X commenced a legal action against Ramsey County related to a psychological evaluation of [X] performed at the Ramsey County Community Mental Health Department at the direction of the District Court, Family Court Division. This action against the County recently [on April 11, 2000] was dismissed on the County's motion for summary judgment on a variety of grounds and is now being appealed by X to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, an individual may challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of public or private government data. Government data are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 7, as all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity]... However, there is also a provision in Chapter 13 clarifying that the judiciary is not subject to Chapter 13; access to data of the judiciary is governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court. See section 13.90. Subdivision 1 of section 13.90 states: For purposes of this section, judiciary means any office, officer, department, division, board, commission, committee, or agency of the courts of this state, whether or not of record, including but not limited to the board of law examiners, the lawyer's professional responsibility board, the board of judicial standards, the lawyer's trust account board, the state law library, the state court administrator's office, the district court administrator's office, and the office of the court administrator. The central issue in this opinion is whether the data in the report fall under the jurisdiction of Chapter 13 or the judiciary. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Davis wrote: It has been the position of Ramsey County that X's rights to attempt to change the factual premise of the Community Mental Health Department's psychological evaluation is limited to any right [s/he] may have to file a motion before the Ramsey County District Court, Family Court Division for the purpose of obtaining reconsideration of the report. X previously had the opportunity to contest the report in Family Court but failed to do so despite being represented by Counsel. It has been the position of Ramsey County that the report is judiciary data and comes within the provisions of Minn.Stat. section 13.90 which exempts the judiciary from the provisions of Minn.Stat. Chapter 13. Access to such data is governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court as set forth in the Rules of Public Access. Upon review of the documentation provided, the Commissioner concurs with the County's position. X's relationship with the County is based strictly upon his/her interaction with the court system. All of the data collected, created, and maintained by the County, including those that make up the psychological report, stem from the court in 1996 appointing the County authority and responsibility to determine another third party to supervise visitation. Were it not for the court involving the County in issues regarding X's visitation of his/her children, X would not have had a relationship with the County. Therefore, the Commissioner opines that the data contained in the psychological evaluation are judiciary data and are exempt from Chapter 13 as pursuant to section 13.90. The County did not violate X's rights by not responding to his/her data challenge. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: August 2, 2000 |
Data subjects
Challenge accuracy and completeness of data
Judicial branch (13.90) (See also: Court records)
