Montezuma County declines state PII certification, authorizes attorney and public health director to send explanation

Montezuma County commissioners on Jan. 14 confirmed they will not sign a state-provided annual certification that would permit county access to certain nonpublic personal identifying information (PII) databases and authorized the county attorney and the public health director to draft and send a written explanation of the board's decision.

The decision came after County Public Health Director Bobby Locke described how the public health department protects client PII and health information, saying, "Every client we see, no matter where they come from, who they are, we protect their personal identifying information and health information. And the only way we release it is through these measures, you know, a subpoena, a warrant, those types of things." Locke identified the document of concern as the state's annual certification tied to access to databases used for programs such as WIC and immunization registries.

County Attorney Steven (last name not given in the public record) outlined the legal effect of the 2022 state law that underlies the certification request, saying the statute requires a third party seeking access to a nonpublic database to certify under penalty of perjury that it will not use the PII to assist in federal immigration enforcement except when required by court order, subpoena or warrant. He also told the board that, to date, 62 of 64 Colorado counties have signed the form.

The county discussed risks and consequences if it does not sign. Steven advised that the primary practical risk is that departments that rely on those state databases could lose access to them—and potentially related funding—because the state is asking for annual certification. Public health staff said the databases in question are needed for day-to-day program delivery, and the department protects information consistent with existing law.

Board members noted that Weld County had proposed alternative language to the state's form that the state did not accept. After discussion, commissioners authorized the county attorney and Public Health Director Bobby Locke to draft a response to the state's inquiry documenting the board's decision and explaining the county's reasons for declining the state's form. The board said it will continue to deny the state's certification when it is sent, and will return to the issue if the county is notified of specific consequences.

The discussion included questions about whether not signing would immediately affect funding; participants said no definitive answer had been provided by the state and that the county was seeking clarification. The board asked the county attorney to coordinate with staff and return any formal notice of consequences to the board for action.

The board did not take a vote that would reverse the prior decision not to sign the state's certification. The county attorney and public health director will draft and send the explanatory response on the board's behalf and notify commissioners of any reply from the state.