Custom Search

Thursday, August 21, 2008

X-Cel Sharing Private Data With The City Of Saint Paul

Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.


Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

I learned that the St.Paul City Attorney Chad Staul, representing St.Paul code enforcement has asked the IPAD for an advisiory opinion as to whether code enforcement would be required to release the names and addresses of citizens who had their power shut off for 30 days or more.

The IPAD issued anopinion that those names and addresses were government data and had to be turned over to the requestors.

See IPAD decision 08-022.

Something cooking ?

Jeff Matiatos

9:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff can you provide a link to 08-022?

9:14 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Thanks Bob

Jeff Matiatos

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think once the ricomen clean the citys clock they sue Xcel.Xcel is violating peoples rights by reporting them to the city.Xcel is only using the city tough code talk to get their money-do you know what that is folks?

Tim Ciani

10:59 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

As Ipad said, under chapter 13 of tha data privacy act, utilities information is private data and St.Pauls legislative code 46.02requiring utilities to release to the city this private data, is illegal and conflicts with Minnesota . Sax vs. Morris again !

Jeff Matiatos

11:27 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Legislative code 46.02 conflicts with Minnesota Statute 13.685.

Jeff Matiatos

11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ARRRRGGG!! help me can't people even read? This is the opinion:

"The following data provided to the City of Saint Paul by private electric companies are public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: the property addresses for those properties that have gone without power for more than thirty days and the reason for the power shut off."

It means people that the City can ask the utility for the data and that once the City has the data it is public information.

So, everything is fine in the universe. The City Attorney was asked by a citizen to release the data and they checked with the state to find out what to do and now they will do it.

And Jeff it has absolutely nothing to do with Morris v Sax. And there is no conflict with data privacy. The info at the utility is private. The City requires info from the utility. Once the City has it, it becomes public. There is no conflict there.


Chuck Repke

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Chuck, legislative codes cannot supersede state law (Statutes).

If Minnesota Statutes say data is private, a city, wich is smaller than a state, cannot create laws that conflict.

Even if the city complies with giving the information out to the requestors, the issue remains that the code should be called into question.

If someone other than Chuck sees my point, please say so.

If i am wrong, i'am wrong.

Morrise vs. Sax involved a conflict of code compliance under the code vs. state statute.

The circumstances are different but the conflict of statute and code are equal issue in this matter and Sax.

Jeff Matiatos

12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone tell me one good reason why the city needs to have utility shut off info on its citizens other than for its adverse reasons ?

1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No Jeff the Minnesota statute doesn't say that your private business between you and your utility company is private, common law would say that is private.

What happens is that the City (the public/we the people/the government) requires for public health reasons the utility company to give the addresses of all utility shut offs. That information the City has determined is in the public's interest (to make sure people aren't in their buring candles or coal fires or freezing to death) and it has the power to do that (reinforced by the opinion you linked here).

What the state is saying to the City in this opinion is: yes you have the ability to get the information from the utility, but once you (the government/public) get the information then if becomes public information and anyone has access to it.

If you can just stop hating the government long enough to realize that the government is you (we the people/the public) then public data makes sense. If the government needs the info, then the public has the right to the info.


Chuck Repke

1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck your the type a guy that hates the Bush administration for getting phone records for terrorist.

Your nose is so far up the citys ass.


2:27 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Tell that to the Ricomen Chuck and to those that are seeking the information.

What makes you think I hate government ?

Jeff Matiatos

2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff, I am guessing that it is someone that is hostile to the City's code enforsement that wants the info. So what? I believe that the public has the right to government info. My only issue is that I think they should know what they are looking for. So, in this case I think it is a good thing. Someone wants the list of all properties with 30 day shut offs. That's fine it will show if the City is doing its job.

What I think is burdomsome is, I want all of the emails ever sent to anyone in the City for the last seven years...and then try and get money if they can't be produced.


Chuck Repke

2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

would someone please post the ipad decision here.

5:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Folks this just in.....................................The city is eating there last supper...........................stay tuned.............................its about to hit and hit hard !!!!!!!!!
Repke and Eric you thought it was over well the ricomen will have the last word and I think there up and ready to battle....................................Get your sleep little Repke you about to get your ass wooped too.............................................SHAME ON YOU ST.PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BOB BE READY TO STAND, ALL IS APPRECIATED--tHANK YOU RICOMEN FOR TAKING THE FIGHT TO CITY HALL.

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The national media was in an uproar over revelations that the federal government, under the guise of "fighting terrorism", was secretly spying on tens of millions of American citizens via their phone records. Honestly, is anyone really surprised at this? This is old news in the independent media. They're monitoring domestic calls for spoken keywords, not merely creating a database of all the phone numbers you've called. Call your buddy in Georgia and mention the phrase "stadium bombing" and your call gets flagged for further review.

But the masses don't have a clue about that. They only know things that are reported in USA Today or cable news programs. And so they think the big uproar we're all witnessing right now has to do with the fact that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been secretly and illegally collecting the private phone records of tens of millions of Americans who have done nothing wrong and who are accused of no crime.

If you're surprised by any of this, let me be blunt: You're a little slow. Did you really think the secret spying activities of this government would be limited only to terrorists? Fascist governments find it much easier to simply spy on everyone, then kidnap, interrogate and torture whomever they wish. And make no mistake, the United States government today, as it exists under the Bush Administration, behaves as a fascist government.

8:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ricomen rock and Repke sucks!

8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

5:42 this is the opinion:

"The following data provided to the City of Saint Paul by private electric companies are public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: the property addresses for those properties that have gone without power for more than thirty days and the reason for the power shut off."

8:04 it isn't "spying" for the City to want to make sure that your house isn't going to be burned down because your neighbor no longer have power and is burning charcoal on the floor of the livng room.

They have requested the addresses of those houses that no longer have power and the reason why (unpaid bill - off for vacation). They use the info to send out an inspector to determine if the house has been abbandoned - it isn't spying, its protecting the public health. It is a basic job of the protect the health and welfare of the public.


Chuck Repke

9:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck get some rest you'll need it!You might want to call a special session to talk about damage control-The ricomen don't sleep!

Folks get ready!

1:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take the poll on Former POlice Chief Bill Finney:

9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck whats all this talk about the ricomen?Have you heard any buzz?


9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck are you ready for the ricomen to steamroll the city with their evidence.Its their turn.

The Ricomen

9:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the question of which laws have seperority over conflicting laws.
Laws that are in conflict with a larger unit of gov,t are usually superceded by the larder unit of Gov,t. If you recall we fought a civil war over this question! The confederacy thought the state should have dominence over rulings done at the federal level, And 600,000 thousand men lost thier lives deciding this and the slavery issue.

IE: the fFed. laws will usually be found to take precedence over state laws.

2:21 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

What is the city doing with the data?

Condemning homes with shut off utilities and putting families on the street.

9:04 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K. Lucht said...

I told you of this a couple of week ago. About city, state and federal laws on data.

Which laws has more too it.

yea its the city of St.Paul.
Morris vs Sax.

The city law can not superseed state law. OOPS OOPS

Chuck you need to call dave t.
and tell him the city is in the wrong again.

Or maybe someone will file a lawsuit against the city of St.PAul
and excel.

The winning will get $13,000,
Plus an other $1000.00 per month.

The new state law for voilation
of mn data law.

It will cost the city more in lawyer fees and pay out

9:42 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

What i want to know is whether legislative code 46.02 that requires utilities to report to the city about these shut offs violates Minnesota statutes chapter 13.

Chapter 13 says that public utilities data is private information yet we have a legislative code superceding the statute ?

Of the thousands of people with shut offs, if anyone is reading this, fight the city on this and file for an injunction to make the city stop enforcing its code against your right to privacy under the statute.

I will personally help you do this.

Jeff Matiatos

9:46 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

All it takes is one shutoff victim to go foward with a declaratory and injunctive relief class action and it would settle the issue for all.

I think I read somewere here that because of sax / Morris, the city is researching its local laws to see if they are in compliance with Morris ?

Well, add legislative code 46.02 to that list !

Jeff Matiatos

11:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff you nut case the state said:

"The following data provided to the City of Saint Paul by private electric companies are public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13: the property addresses for those properties that have gone without power for more than thirty days and the reason for the power shut off."

It said the information provided to the City is public information.

What planet do you live on?


Chuck Repke

11:26 PM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

Chuck, is your head full of air !

Read the advisory opinion that says this.

" Minn.Stat.13.685 classifies data on customers of municipal electric utilities as private and non public data "

Get yor head out of your ass, its easier to read that way !

I said i believe that the legislative code conflicts with the statute which is true.

For the time being, its legal, so the legislative code says, for the utilities to give the info to Government.

I could challage that in a New York minute and have a court find that legislative code 46.02 is illegal.

Jeff Matiatos

7:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff, Chuck is right, only if the utilities are coming from a municipal utility is the data considered private dats.
St.Paul residents get their utility
from a private company, that data is not covered under chapter 13.
A consolation argument for you could be that because of all the subsidies ex-cel gets from the city, its part government.
Chuck is still an airhead though.

7:26 AM  
Anonymous Jeff Matiatos said...

7:26 a/.m.

Thank you for correcting me in a civil manner.

Sometimes people read things that seem arbitrary and unfair, and I guess I was reading the statute in the context of beleiving that citizens data should be protected from government from overreaching.

You made your point Chuck.

Jeff Matiatos

7:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Chuck!


2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Sec. 46.01. Notice of intent to discontinue service to be posted.
Sec. 46.02. Notice of discontinued service to be sent to the city.
Sec. 46.03. Penalties.


*Editor's note--Section 2 of Ord. No. 17590, adopted by council Sept. 20, 1988, amended Ch. 46 in its entirety to read as herein set out. Prior to this amendment, Ch. 46, substantive provisions of which consisted of §§ 46.01--46.03, pertained to notice of intent to discontinue utility service and was derived from §§ 46.01--46.03 of Code 1956 and Ord. No. 17580, §§ 1, 2, adopted Aug. 18, 1988.


Sec. 46.01. Notice of intent to discontinue service to be posted.

(a) All utility companies and governmental subdivisions which supply gas, electric, water, hot water or steam service in the city of Saint Paul, either through a single meter or to dwellings with two (2) or more dwelling units which are not individually metered, shall post on or near the front and rear entrance of a multiple dwelling a notice of intent to discontinue such service for failure to pay utility bills. Such notice shall be posted clearly and conspicuously as to be observable to persons entering or exiting from the property.

(b) Such notice shall be posted not less than seven (7) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the actual discontinuance of the service and shall state the date on or about which such service shall be discontinued.

(c) No utility service shall be discontinued until all provisions of this section have been complied with.

(d) Any notice of intent to discontinue utility service posted pursuant to this section shall contain the following statement printed on the face of the notice in a conspicuous manner:

"The removing or defacing of this placard by an unauthorized person shall be deemed a misdemeanor and conviction thereof is punishable by a fine not to exceed seven hundred dollars ($700.00) and/or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days."

The notice shall also inform the tenant or lessee of their right to pay the outstanding bill or portion thereof and deduct the cost from the rent pursuant to section 49.03(a).

(Ord. No. 17590, § 2, 9-20-88)

Sec. 46.02. Notice of discontinued service to be sent to the city.

All utility companies and governmental subdivisions which supply gas, electric, water, hot water or steam service in the city to any dwelling or building used for residential purposes, including single-family or duplex structures, shall forward to the city a notice whenever service has been discontinued for any reason for a period of thirty (30) days. The notice shall include the reason for the discontinuation of service. It shall be forwarded in a manner agreed upon between the utility company and the director of the department of safety and inspections to the department of safety and inspections, for all buildings.

(Ord. No. 17590, § 2, 9-20-88; C.F. No. 07-149, § 16, 3-28-07)

Sec. 46.03. Penalties.

Any person who fails to comply with any provision of this chapter, or who defaces, removes or otherwise obstructs a notice required by this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished as provided by section 1.05 of this Legislative Code.

6:22 PM  
Anonymous Leslie K.Lucht said...

Subd. 4. Limitations on collection and use of data. Private or confidential data on an
individual shall not be collected, stored, used, or disseminated by government entities for any
purposes other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection in accordance with
section 13.04, except as provided in this subdivision.
(a) Data collected prior to August 1, 1975, and which have not been treated as public data,
may be used, stored, and disseminated for the purposes for which the data was originally collected
or for purposes which are specifically approved by the commissioner as necessary to public
health, safety, or welfare.
(b) Private or confidential data may be used and disseminated to individuals or entities
specifically authorized access to that data by state, local, or federal law enacted or promulgated
after the collection of the data.
(c) Private or confidential data may be used and disseminated to individuals or entities
subsequent to the collection of the data when the responsible authority maintaining the data has
requested approval for a new or different use or dissemination of the data and that request has been
specifically approved by the commissioner as necessary to carry out a function assigned by law.
(d) Private data may be used by and disseminated to any person or entity if the individual
subject or subjects of the data have given their informed consent. Whether a data subject
has given informed consent shall be determined by rules of the commissioner. The format for
informed consent is as follows, unless otherwise prescribed by the HIPAA, Standards for Privacy
of Individually Identifiable Health Information,

6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the city of st.paul is in deep shit. More lawsuits.
And dave t. will part of it.

6:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you actually read everything posted here on the law, you will realize what I said in the first place was true. Your bill is a private matter between you and the utility. The state in 13 makes it clear that if a city owned a utility that bill would not be public information but private.

Now, when the city determines for public health or safety reasons to be given the information about someone not having utilities that state allows that but then the state says that is now public information and anyone has access to it.

It is not that complicated boys.


Chuck Repke

9:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You need to read the state code. It does not say that about health or safety. Nor the city code say that.

Where the fuck are you get this bullshit.

That right your get it from dave again

10:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home