Advisory Opinion 06-025

Facts and Procedural History:

On July 17, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated July 12, 2006, from Thomas Wenner. In his letter, Mr. Wenner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City of Rice maintains.

A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Wenner wrote:

The City has a Fire Protection Agreement with Watab Township and under the terms of the Fire Protection Agreement provides fire protection and emergency services regarding property located in Watab Township and medical emergencies which occur in Watab Township.

The Township has requested that the City supply certain information with respect to vehicle accidents such that the Township may exercise its authority under Minnesota Statute section366.011 to collect service charges for such services. The information requested is as follows:

1. Name of each vehicle owner.
2. Name of vehicle insurance company for each vehicle.
3. Name of driver for each vehicle.
4. VIN number and vehicle license number for each vehicle.
5. Whether a call was a medical or rescue call.

The township is not requesting information regarding the names or conditions of the victim or anything concerning the health care services which were provided to the victim.

Mr. Wenner provided the Commissioner with a copy of the Fire Protection Agreement.

Issue:

Based on Mr. Wenner's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:

Is the City of Rice in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, if it releases certain data relating to vehicle accidents to Watab Township?

---

Discussion:

Certain metropolitan townships are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13 pursuant to language in section 13.02, subdivision 11. To the best of the Commissioner's knowledge, Watab Township is not subject to Chapter 13. The following analysis is based on that assumption.

The situation before the Commissioner is one in which, through a contractual relationship, a government entity subject to Chapter 13 (the City) is performing services on behalf of a person not subject to Chapter 13 (the Township). In providing services to the Township, the City apparently has collected and maintains certain data and now has inquired whether it may release those data to the Township.

Clearly, if any of the data in question are public, the City must release those data to anyone, including the Township, who makes a request. Here, the Commissioner does not have enough information to determine the classification of the data.

Generally, private government data about individuals can be disseminated to non-governmental entities only if there is statutory authority for the release or if the data subjects have consented to the release. In this case, the City did not provide any information suggesting there is statutory authority for the City to release the data or that the data subjects provided consent.

The Legislature did recognize there are times when government entities contract with private persons. To address such situations, the Legislature, over the years, has adopted five provisions in Chapter 13: sections 13.02, subdivision 11; 13.05, subdivision 6; 13.05, subdivision 11; 13.35; and 13.46, subdivision 5. The Commissioner has examined each of these provisions and finds that none of them allows for the sharing of data in the scenario presented by Mr. Wenner. Section 13.05, subdivision 6, states, in any contract between a government entity subject to this chapter and any person, when the contract requires that data on individuals be made available to the contracting parties by the government entity, that data shall be administered consistent with this chapter. However, there is no language in the Fire Protection Agreement that discusses the City providing data to the Township. Thus, it does not appear, pursuant to Chapter 13, that the City may release the data in question to the Township, unless the data are public or the data subjects have consented to the release.

The Commissioner acknowledges that this seems a peculiar result given the Township should have access to, at a minimum, data demonstrating that the City is fulfilling its terms of the contract. However, absent specific language in the contract regarding the sharing of data between the City and the Township, there does not appear to be authority for the City to release the data. Based on the language in section 13.05, subdivision 6, if the City's current or future contract(s) with the Township did discuss specifically the sharing of data, the data would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. As pursuant to section 13.02 and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2, private data is accessible to those individuals whose work assignments reasonably require access. Thus, Township employees who need the data to do their jobs would be granted access.

Finally, given that government entities may increasingly be contracting out their services to private parties, it would be helpful for the Legislature to address issues related to data sharing.

---

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Wenner raised is as follows:

It does not appear that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the City of Rice may release to Watab Township certain data relating to vehicle accidents.

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: August 17, 2006

---