Over the past couple of years, our small  – but mighty – all-volunteer board has spent a lot of time thinking about our role in the community and how we can best use our limited resources to advocate for open access to government.

Listening sessions that some of you attended (Thank you!) helped us clearly see that the best thing we can do is serve as a megaphone, alerting all of you about dangers that might lead to reduced public access, or to tell you about the occasional victory.

As a result, we’ve focused much of our energy the last few months in launching a new website and creating this newsletter, which we expect to send out once a month. And you may have noticed we changed our name (formerly, Minnesota Coalition on Government Information or MNCOGI).

Please forward this newsletter to your friends or share on your social media feeds to help us ensure this reaches as many people as possible. If you haven’t signed up for the newsletter yet, you can do that on our website.

–MaryJo Webster

MNOG is partnering with CURE for a free, informative webinar about using Minnesota’s public records law, the Data Practices Act (DPA), on Wednesday, Dec. 10 at 6:30 p.m. 

Presenters will provide timely examples of how DPA requests have been used to learn more about secrecy-shrouded data center projects across the state and answer questions about how the DPA applies despite things like non-disclosure agreements entered into by local governments. 

This webinar kicks off CURE’s Data Center webinar series, which will offer insight into their impacts on water, energy, and our communities, and the policies and tools you can use when faced with a proposed project. 

Presenters include Hudson Kingston and Sarah Mooradian, both from CURE, and Don Gemberling, an MNOG board member and expert on the DPA. This webinar is meant to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. 

A largely unredacted transcript of a 911 call made during the alleged shooting spree targeting Minnesota state legislators was recently made public following a legal battle between Hennepin County law enforcement and several Minnesota media outlets.

The June 14, 2025, incident left Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, shot in their home. Their daughter, Hope Hoffman, made a 911 call from their residence just minutes after the attack.

When media organizations requested the 911 call transcript, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office initially denied the request and subsequently provided a heavily redacted copy, claiming it contained health records and nonpublic data from an active criminal investigation. Black bars covered the bulk of the text, revealing little beyond the Hoffmans' address and that they had been shot.

Attorney Isabella Salomão Nascimento, representing KARE 11, KSTP-TV, and the Star Tribune, argued that 911 call transcripts are public under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) as “request for service” data, and therefore this one should not be withheld. Salomão Nascimento is also a MNOG board member. 

-Kristine Tietz

MNOG has appealed the district court’s summary judgment decision in its lawsuit against the City of Minneapolis and its police department over “coaching” data. A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals is set to hear oral argument on January 21.

The lawsuit stems from a 2021 request MNOG (then named MNCOGI) made under the Data Practices Act (DPA) for, among other things, data “in which coaching is described as a form of discipline.” 

The request followed the murder of George Floyd and international scrutiny of police misconduct in Minneapolis. The city denied the request, stating “[c]oaching is not discipline and has never been discipline. The data you are requesting is private under MN statute 13.43; MPD has no responsive data. Your request is now closed.”

MNOG’s appeal argues that the trial court’s definition of “disciplinary action” is flawed, that the city violated the DPA by failing to even search for responsive records and by falsely stating it had none, that coaching for misconduct at the the B-level and above is indistinguishable from recognized forms of disciplinary action, and that the court ignored the summary judgment standard by stepping into the role of factfinder, and improperly crediting officials’ made-for-litigation declarations, while ignoring a mass of evidence that, at a minimum, created a disputed issue of material fact.

–Leita Walker and Isabella Salomão Nascimento, attorneys at Ballard Spahr. Salomão Nascimento also serves on the MNOG board.

On September 25th, Minnesotans for Open Government (MNOG) filed its amicus brief in a police data case that is currently before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  

The case — Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association v. Minnesota POST Board — involves claims that the POST Board improperly disseminated data on undercover police officers.  For its part, the POST Board has denied that it violated the state’s Data Practices Act (DPA) when it released information on licensed officers in response to a public data request.

The case hinges, in large part, on the classification of data in a spreadsheet containing the names and birthdates of officers that the POST Board maintains for licensing purposes.

Depending on how the case is resolved, it could have broad impacts on public data access — far beyond the issues in the current litigation.  

— Matt Ehling

When Minnesota’s Legislative Commission on Data Practices began a new series of hearings this fall, MNOG submitted written testimony on open government issues that its board members have been tracking.

This included: use of data portals to manage Data Practices requests, problems with access to data at the Attorney General's Office and records retention issues. Board members also encouraged the Commission to look into how artificial intelligence is being used by government entities, and how that use is impacting government transparency. Find the testimony at the Commission's website.

The Commission's mandate is to review issues encompassed by the Data Practices Act, including open government and data privacy. The Commission, which was formed in 2014, has also reviewed policy matters involving emergency technologies that touch on both of these issues.

At the October 15th hearing, the Commission appointed two bi-partisan co-chairs (Rep. Peggy Scot and Rep. Sandra Feist) and heard discussion related to potential topics to cover for its next round of hearings.

—Matt Ehling

There has been quite a bit of news lately about local governments abandoning the idea of transparency when it comes to signing nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) in the hope that they may score a massive energy-consuming data center for their town.  Hopefully, vigorous use of our state Data Practices Act (DPA) will force them to disclose information about their development activities and the effects that any data center will have on their citizens.  

The DPA states that almost all of the data these governments are receiving or generating are subject to a presumption that those data are available to the public. Government can only withhold data from the public if there is a statute or federal law that makes the data not public.  Although local governments can enter into an NDA to agree to not talk about their development activities, they cannot deny access to data because of an NDA.  An NDA is a contract. It is not a statute or federal law.  As a general principle, a contract is not effective if it is in violation of a statute. 

MNOG urges citizens, who want to learn what their governments are doing with negotiations about data centers, to make requests for data about those negotiations.  The statute that establishes their right to do so is Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03.  Citizens can also go to the MNOG website for helpful information including a video that explains how to make requests.  

—Don Gemberling

Some Twin Cities patrol officers use artificial intelligence to compose reports. (St. Paul Pioneer Press) St. Paul police major crime investigators use AI technology to transcribe interviews with victims, witnesses and suspects. MNOG’s Don Gemberling calls it “a deeply troubling way the human action is recorded and managed to avoid capture of something close to ‘truth.’”

A Washington state judge ruled that police images taken by Flock’s AI license plate-scanning cameras are public records. (404 Media) Flock’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras are used in thousands of US communities. In this case, the city in question automatically deleted them after 30 days.

Hermantown sued over data center study. (Minnesota Star Tribune). The city hid key information from residents; it didn’t identify the project as a data center in its environmental review. “The reason we have multiple lawsuits on this is because of this troubling trend of secrecy we’re seeing across the state, and not just in Minnesota but nationally, as well, in the way that data center proposals are brought forward,” said Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy CEO Kathryn Hoffman. Here’s the story from the Duluth News Tribune.

Lawmakers urge governors to block ICE's access to drivers' data. (Reuters) Nlets system complexity leads to unintentional data sharing with ICE. Minnesota is among a handful of states that blocked ICE from accessing the data.

Citizen journalists hold ICE accountable via video. (Minnesota Star Tribune) ACLU-MN advice: Police may not confiscate or demand to view photographs or video without a warrant, nor may they delete data under any circumstances. 

–Hal Davis