Advisory Opinion 02-048
December 16, 2002; Dakota County
Background & Issues
A county agency conducts housing inspections only when individuals apply for Section 8 rental assistance, meaning records tied to specific units could reveal who receives aid. The agency asked the Commissioner whether five years of housing inspection reports for a particular apartment complex are public or private.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner decided that the housing inspection reports are private data. However, if the agency redacts the details that identify specific housing units, the remaining records are considered public.
Automated synopsis generated for quick reference only — it has not been reviewed word-for-word against the official record and is not legal advice. Always review the full opinion text below for the Commissioner's actual determination, or see the original document on mn.gov. Think this summary misstates the opinion? Report it.
Excerpted Ruling / ConclusionBased on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Shefchik raised is as follows:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.462, all housing inspections reports for a particular apartment complex over the past five years that the Dakota County Community Development Agency maintains are private data. If, however, the County redacts data from the report that identify the particular housing unit, the data presumptively are public.
December 16, 2002; Dakota County
12/16/2002 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 November 18, 2002, IPAD received correspondence from Janet Shefchik, of the Dakota County Community Development Agency. In her memo, Ms. Shefchik asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the County maintains. A summary of the facts is as follows. Ms. Shefchik explained that when an individual or family is interested in participating in the Section 8 rental assistance program, the Community Development Agency conducts an inspection to determine if the housing unit meets certain requirements. Ms. Shefchik wrote: The housing inspections are only completed by us when a person or family is interested in participating in the Section 8 rental assistance program. Therefore, housing inspection information tied to a specific unit may identify program participants, whether directly or indirectly (e.g. if the claimant knows the unit #, and happens to know the residents who live or have lived there, he could reasonable [sic] surmise who is a participant). Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. Shefchik asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Benefit data are classified at section 13.462 and are defined as data on individuals collected or created because an individual seeks information about becoming, is, or was an applicant for or a recipient of benefits or services provided under various housing, home ownership...programs administered by [government entities]. (See subdivision 1 of section 13.462.) Pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 13.462, benefit data are classified as private. The Commissioner addressed a similar issue in Advisory Opinion 94-009: For purposes of the MGDPA, the term data on individuals is defined, in relevant part, as follows: 'Data on individuals' means all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, . . . . The part of the definition that talks about government data being able to identify an individual as the subject of certain data reflects an understanding by the legislature that in some instances, while government data in and of itself does not directly identify a specific individual by using the individual's name or other unique personal identifier, the very nature of the data can still identify an individual and associate that individual with data that is required to be maintained as not public. An example, relative to this particular situation, illustrates the issue. If a member of the public went to the MPHA and asked to receive the names and addresses of tenants in housing owned by the MPHA, Section 13.31 would operate to prevent lawful disclosure of that data by the MPHA. This request would clearly be a request for private government data that identifies an individual. If that same member of the public returned to the MPHA a week later and made a request to receive the addresses of properties owned by the MPHA and used for public housing, no data is being requested that directly identifies public housing tenants. However, upon the receipt of the addresses, the requestor would be provided with data from which individual identities, names and so forth of public housing tenants, could be established. In such an instance, the legislature's intent to classify benefit data as private data would become meaningless. Given the definitions of benefit data and data on individuals as discussed above, it is appropriate for the MPHA to consider addresses of scattered site house owned by the agency as data that can identify recipients of housing benefits and therefore private data under the MGDPA. For the MPHA to do otherwise could subject it to potential liability under the MGDPA. If data on scattered site housing addresses were released to the public by MPHA, housing benefit recipients identified through that release of data could assert a cause of action against the MPHA. The threat of a possible lawsuit is designed into the MGDPA as part of its overall framework of requiring agency compliance. In this instance, the MPHA is attempting to avoid that risk by a reasonable judgement that the scattered site housing address in the possession of the MPHA are private data that cannot be made available to the public.... In the present case, according to Ms. Shefchik, the County's Community Development Agency creates and maintains inspection data only because the County has inspected a housing unit for possible residency by a Section 8 participant. Thus, if the County releases data relating to the inspection of a particular housing unit, it is possible the requestor could determine the identity of a Section 8 participant. As the Commissioner stated in 94-009, such an instance would render meaningless the Legislature's intent to classify benefit data as private. The Commissioner notes the following. Ms. Shefchik inquired about the classification of all housing inspection reports for a particular apartment complex. As long as a particular housing unit is identified as the subject of a housing inspection report, it is the Commissioner's opinion that the data are private. If, however, the County redacts data from the report that identify the particular housing unit, the data presumptively are public. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Shefchik raised is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: December 16, 2002 |