On December 11, 2025, Minnesotans for Open Government submitted written testimony to the Minnesota Legislature’s Data Practices Commission.  

MNOG submitted comments on the history and structure of the Minnesota Data Practices Act (DPA), and how it differs from the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) — which many other states used as the basis for their “open records” laws.  MNOG stressed the benefits of the DPA’s detailed data management framework, which explicitly requires much government data to be presumed to be “public,” and limits government entity discretion through proscriptive statutory language. 

This stands in contrast to the federal FOIA, which contains several broadly-worded exemptions that permit federal agencies extensive discretion to withhold certain categories of information.

The differences between the DPA’s “law enforcement data” section — and the manner with which comparable data is treated under federal law — have come into stark contrast in recent weeks, as federal immigration officials have conducted a series of high-profile enforcement actions in Minnesota.  While press outlets and others have had difficulty gaining access to information about the status of arrested individuals, Minnesota law requires that specific information about detained persons is “public” at all times.

MNOG’s comments were submitted to inform legislators about the benefits of the state’s unique approach to government data management, in order to ensure that its positive features are preserved.

MNOG also submitted comments regarding the growing use of artificial intelligence by government entities. MNOG highlighted several transparency challenges that will emerge from governmental AI use, and proposed legislation to conduct a study of AI use by state  government, as a first step toward greater regulation of the technology’s use in Minnesota government entities.

The December meeting was the second in a series of Commission meetings that took testimony on a wide variety of government data matters.  The Commission’s role is to review “big picture” issues regarding government information policy.

Find MNOG’s comments posted on the Minnesota Legislature’s Data Practices and Personal Privacy Commission home page.

— Matt Ehling

MNOG partnered with CURE for a webinar about using the Minnesota Data Practices Act. You can watch the recording here.

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. 

The Minnesota Star Tribune filed a lawsuit Dec. 23 against the city of Minneapolis, alleging that the police department has refused to release crime report information in violation of the state public records law.

The lawsuit, in Hennepin County District Court, contends the city improperly withheld homicide victims’ names and addresses on multiple occasions, but the suit concerns a single incident.

Attorneys for the Star Tribune are asking the court to order the city and its clerk, Casey Carl, to promptly release the requested information, comply with the law in future instances and pay a civil fine and damages.

Minneapolis Communications Director Scott Wasserman said in a statement that the city has repeatedly told the newspaper that the medical examiner, not the city, is charged with identifying deceased individuals and notifying the next of kin.

–MaryJo Webster

MNOG operates a service of helping people get access to government data.  Often we get calls or emails in which the citizen says a variation on:  “I asked my city (county, or whatever) a question about some activity but they will not answer my questions.”

In most cases, there is no legal requirement for government employees to answer your questions. They may choose to do so, but they do not have to. Our suggestion is always:  turn your question into a request for data citing the state’s Data Practices Act (DPA), Section 13.03  of Minnesota Statutes.  

For example, many people across the state are concerned that their cities are working with developers to bring data centers to a city.  When citizens ask questions about that work, they are told that city employees cannot comment because the city has signed a nondisclosure agreement with the developer.  Although we believe those agreements are bad policy, cities are free to enter into them.  However, agreements such as these cannot stop the city from complying with the DPA.  Compliance with the DPA is legally required.  

The exact ways to turn questions into data requests will vary depending on the situation.  In the case of data center developments, here are some possible requests.  

Please provide me with access to all data that documents the city’s work, correspondence or any other contacts  about development activities.  

Please provide me access to all contracts the city has entered into the subject of which is economic development.  

Assuming some information is available, the request could be:  

Please provide me access to any and all contacts, including correspondence in electronic and any other modes of communication, with (fill in the name of the company(s)).  

The switch from asking questions to making data requests has helped citizens in a number of cities – including Rosemount and Hermantown –  gain access to plans for data centers.  

This approach to finding what your government is doing is usable at all levels of government and for an endless variety of situations where the government refuses to answer what the citizen rightly feels is a very simple question. 

As always, help is available from MNOG.

–Don Gemberling

1.  What keeps newsroom leaders up at night (Washington Post) Audrey Cooper, editor in chief of the Baltimore Banner: The accelerating erosion of basic access for local reporters to things we used to take for granted: public records, public buildings, public meetings and even public demonstrations.

2.      Flock Exposed Its AI-Powered Cameras to the Internet. We Tracked Ourselves. (404 Media) Cooper Quintin, senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “Flock's ambitions go far beyond license-plate surveillance. They want to be a nation-wide panopticon, watching everyone all the time.”

3.      Puerto Rico governor signs bill that critics say will restrict access to public information (AP). It doubles the amount of time the government must respond to records requests, and changes existing practice of providing information in the format requested. It would also let the government classify information as confidential without judicial review.

4.  Government’s historic role as trusted information source is under threat (Washington Post) A small army of researchers and data enthusiasts is focused on monitoring which data is eliminated and scrambling to preserve reports and datasets.

 5.  NDAs, code names and shell companies: How Minnesota officials support data center secrecy (Minnesota Star Tribune) The scarcity of information is driving some Minnesotans to form community groups, pack council chambers, file lawsuits and protest on street corners in furious opposition to these projects. A state lawmaker tried to ban these NDAs because of a Rosemount data center, while an outcry in Hermantown made a county official regret signing one.

–Hal Davis