To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
May 24, 1999; Carlton County
5/24/1999 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 1, 1999, IPA received a letter dated March 26, 1999, from the Js, a married couple. In their letter they requested an advisory opinion, alleging that Carlton County had violated their rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Karen Wunderlich, Director of Carlton County Human Services, in response to the Js' request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 6, 1999, were to inform her of the Js' request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County's position. On April 30, 1999, IPA received a response, dated April 29, 1999, from Dennis Genereau, Assistant Carlton County Attorney. A summary of the facts is as follows. On May 28, 1998, the Js signed a document presented to them by an adoption agency, the address of which is in Minnesota. The document is entitled CONSENT AND REQUEST FOR HUMAN SERVICES RECORDS and is addressed to Carlton County Social Services. In responding to the adoption agency's release form, the County disseminated a letter addressed to the adoption agency. The letter is dated June 9, 1998, and in it a County social worker provided an assessment of the Js' suitability as adoptive parents. Issue:In their request for an opinion, the Js asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d), a government entity may disseminate private government data to any person or agency if the data subject has given his/her informed consent. Informed consent implies the data subject is aware of or has the ability to find out which specific data s/he is consenting to release. Minnesota Rules section 1205.1400 provides additional information about informed consent. For example, language in subpart 3 states that informed consent means the data subject possesses an appreciation of the consequences of allowing the entity to initiate a new purpose or use of the data in question. In the case of this opinion, on May 28, 1998, each of the Js signed identical consent forms that apparently the adoption agency had prepared. In relevant part, the forms state: I hereby acknowledge notice that this study will be done and give my consent to any of the above listed (named) agencies, offices and departments to release any data of which I am the subject, whether such data is private or public. I also consent [sic] the release of records regarding any present or former foster care from designated county or agency.... (Emphasis added.) Upon receipt of the releases, the County disseminated a letter written by a County social worker. The Js object to the release of this letter because it is dated, and was presumably written, on June 9, 1998, twelve days after the Js signed the consent forms. The letter appears primarily to be the social worker's summation of the Js' relationship with the County, including his opinions and assessment of their suitability as adoptive parents. The County's position, as Mr. Genereau presented, is that the County acted appropriately and in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota Rules in disseminating private data on the J's [sic] to the adoption agency. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. Section 13.05, subdivision 4 (d), provides that a government entity may disseminate private government data if the entity has secured the data subject's informed consent. It does not, however, authorize the entity to create new data for the purposes of responding to a release. On behalf of the County, Mr. Genereau wrote that the social worker drafted a letter dated June 9, 1998, in which he provided private data on the Js to the requesting adoption agency. Mr. Genereau is correct that the letter contains private data; however, those data were created after the Js signed the release forms. In this case, because the County apparently created and disseminated new data in response to the release forms, the Js had no way of knowing which data they were consenting to release. Therefore, the County did not meet its obligation under section 13.05 Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by the Js is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: May 24, 1999 |
Data subjects
Educational data
Informed consent
Adoption records
