�In the same letter, you state that there is no requirement that your office provide myself with the informa-tion (copies) of records shared with your office due to an attorney-client relationship between your office and the DHS/MSOP. The memo that I received from Mr. Rick Harry, COO of the MSOP, implied that I have engaged in some form of criminal behavior while detained at the MSOP, which I find inaccurate and incomplete.
According to the Government Data Practices Act, 13.04, Subd. 3, I have the right to request access to this data. According to Subd. 4 of the same Act, I have a right to challenge data if it is not correct or accurate; how-ever, your office, in conjunction with the MSOP/DHS, are denying me access to that data. This in and of itself violates my Due Process of Law and Equal Protection Rights as outlined in the US Constitution.
Administratively, you are denying my opportunity to review the documentation stored by the MSOP/DHS for its accuracy and completeness. You are also denying my opportunity to challenge this data if I find error with it, which denies me the process in which to possibly correct it.
[Resident�s Name Withheld]
________________________________
There are at least four Minnesota Governmental Departments here that we as citizens employ through our tax dollars, and their conduct in this matter is highly suspect. Citizens For Reform is aware of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 253B � The Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act -- wherein it states as follows:
�The patient has the right to view and receive copies of all medical records relevant to the commitment.� Minn. Stat. 253B.03, subd. 8.
At a time when we as citizens of Minnesota are enduring a 4.56 billion dollar deficit that may take years to overcome respectively, why are we not paying closer attention to how our tax dollars are being spent? The process mentioned above is costing us millions of dollars to represent a program that is deficient, and then we pay thousands more to defend it in various courts of law when its professional conduct is in question, why?
Synopsis of the Family Advisory Council Meeting
Saturday, January 25, 2003
Present: Michael Brown, Florentine Brown, Karen Peterson, Mary Thuringer, and Joe Novy.
Guests: Peter Erlinder (attorney), Margretta Dwyer (licensed psychologist & Forensic Specialist), Rev. Thomas Van Leer (civil rights advocate), and Chris Spotted Eagle (MCLU).
The meeting of the Family Advisory Council was held at the Rum River Library in Champlin (Anoka Co.) and began at approx. 11:00 a.m. due to late arrivals. Erlinder and Spotted Eagle arrived at approx. 11:20 a.m.
Members discussed an issue behind the civil commitment of an MSOP resident who was civilly committed for taking the bus to his treatment sessions rather than a cab or limousine (which he had done in the past). Officials said this was a violation of his conditions. He was first placed in the St. Cloud prison and then transferred to Moose Lake, where he is now committed indefinitely.
Members also discussed the offending history of another resident and how he was civilly committed. When he was 16, he committed himself for treatment with the belief that it would only be for two years. When he became an adult, he was indeterminately committed to the MSOP. He is now 26 years old.
Dwyer stated that we need to decide on whether we want to make life more pleasant for the residents where they are at, or do we want to help them so that they may be released?
Van Leer believes the Council should do what they can to make things more comfortable for residents at the time being, and to set goals for the long term.
Novy suggested we get the facility administration to set a time goal for release. It should not take over three years for treatment to work. We all agreed.
Members discussed �A Bill for an Act� written by Sen. Neuville.
Thuringer stated her concerns regarding Neuville�s proposed bill. It seems as though the residents would pretty much be in the same boat as now (indefinitely locked up). What�s to guarantee this won�t happen under this Bill?
Erlinder stated that offenders have more rights under criminal law than civil law. He also discussed the Jury Trial case presented to the court. Stated that it is a challenge to the entire judicial system and it must go forward � courts can�t deny it. The Supreme Court has to agree with it or change 200 years of Minnesota law.
Erlinder also stated that we need to get Neuville to go public with his issues on the budget, etc. at some point in time (soon).
Spotted Eagle asked: �What roll does the Family Advisory Council play in all of this�? �What do or should we do�? Suggestions were made and plans will be set.
Thuringer stated that she had contacted the Mankato Free Press (a small town newspaper) and they printed our story. Many people she has been in contact with in and around her community are in full support of what CFR has been doing.
Members discussed treatment issues. Many options were discussed and will be talked about in future meetings.
Meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m. The next Family Advisory Council meeting will be held on Saturday, March 15 at 10:30 a.m. at the Rum River Library in Champlin (Anoka County).
Note: Many issues discussed at the FAC meeting were withheld from these minutes at this time. More information will be forthcoming at a later date.
