It’s that time of year when we open up our Freedom of Information Awards, seeking nominations for individuals or organizations that exemplify a commitment to freedom of information. 

We have two awards – one that honors a particular achievement in the past year; and another that honors lifetime achievement. In either case, the nominee can be an individual or a group of people or an organization. The nomination form is here. The deadline to apply is 10 p.m. Sunday, March 8th.

Established in 1989, the John R. Finnegan Freedom of Information award is given to those individuals and groups who demonstrate through expression and action commitment to the idea that a popular and democratic government can never realize the aspirations of the founding fathers without the participation of an informed electorate. An informed electorate cannot exist without access to information.

The John Borger Lifetime Achievement Award, which was first given out in 2022, honors individuals or organizations that have a significant body of accomplishments that have advanced or preserved the public’s right to government transparency. The award is named after Borger, a First Amendment attorney who was a MNOG board member and worked for decades to protect Minnesota’s sunshine laws. In landmark public access cases and dozens of open-records and open-meeting battles, Borger fought to assure that public officials lived up to the demands of data practices law.

More information about the awards, including past winners, is on our website, https://www.mnog.org/awards.

—MaryJo Webster

The Minnesota Legislature, which convened Feb. 17th, is expected to include debates on confidentiality of public officials' home addresses. This is an issue that has been brewing for several years, but has heightened awareness following the 2025 murder of former Speaker Melissa Hortman, and the shooting of Senator John Hoffman, who were both targeted at their respective homes.

Protections were added to state law in 2024 for individuals defined as a "judicial official," which includes active or retired judges and judicial branch employees.  The 2024 legislation also added civil penalties for publishing the address of a “judicial official” on the Internet. MNOG and others raised constitutional concerns about those penalty provisions. Following that opposition, the Legislature added some exceptions to the civil penalty section, allowing address information to be posted when it is relevant to a news story or another matter of public concern.

During the current session, at least two bills have been introduced to extend "judicial official" protections to other groups — including police officers and legislators.  The bills are HF 3353 and HF 1567.

HF 3353 would remove the term "judicial official" from Minn. Stat. § 480.40 and replace it with "covered official" — a term defined to include "current or former members of the Minnesota legislature."

HF 1567 would establish parallel language to the "judicial official" civil penalty statute enacted in 2024. The bill would also add "corrections officers" to an existing statute (Minn. Stat. § 609.5151) that criminalizes the dissemination of certain home address information about police officers.  

The criminal penalties of that underlying statute have constitutional problems, in that they could be used to prosecute individuals who do not intend to threaten a police officer, but only "reasonably should know" of an alleged threat. In 2019, the Minnesota Supreme Court struck down similar language in the state's stalking statutes. MNOG asks that this underlying statute be reworked to avoid its constitutional problems.

Both bills expand "private" data classifications around home address and personal contact information; as well as classifying the names of children as "private data."  While much of this data is currently private in personnel and education records, some of the data is public -- such as addresses in county property records or in municipal zoning or planning records. Given the fact this data is spread out across multiple government entities, MNOG is asking the legislature to try to create a manageable bill that narrows the focus of what becomes private, such as by requiring police officers or legislators who seek additional data privacy to submit an "opt-in" form asking that their personal data be classified as private.

Also, classifying legislators' addresses will make it difficult to confirm residency requirements.  This issue has raised its head more frequently in recent years, including in 2024 when an opponent of legislative candidate Curtis Johnson successfully sued him, proving he didn’t live in the district he was running to represent.

–Matt Ehling

A recent survey of state freedom of information coalitions, including Minnesotans for Open Government, found journalists and citizens who need assistance with public records requests often don’t know these groups can help or even if they exist.

The findings come from two nationwide surveys conducted in 2025 as part of the new Transparency Alliance initiative led by MuckRock in partnership with the National Freedom of Information Coalition, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Brechner Freedom of Information Project.

The surveys show a significant gap between the services or resources that many coalitions offer and what journalists and other requesters know is available. Of the 19 coalitions that participated in our survey, 84% offer training services but only 39% of respondents reported knowing if training was a service provided by their state or local coalition.

Read more at MuckRock.com.

–MaryJo Webster

Minnesotans for Open Government strongly condemns the arrest of journalists Georgia Fort and Don Lemon last month. Freedom of the press plays a necessary role in watchdogging the government, and is closely aligned with freedom of information. Democracy cannot function unless residents know what their government is doing. The primary ways they get information about the government’s actions are through press reports and public information requests.

Fort and Lemon, both independent journalists, were arrested by federal agents in connection with their role documenting an anti-ICE demonstration at a St. Paul church Jan. 18.

In the wake of their arrests, dozens of news organizations and other statewide and national partners signed a joint statement condemning the arrests and defending press freedom. Many national and international press freedom organizations have also posted their own statements. The Minnesota Journalism Center is tracking those statements.

–MaryJo Webster

With the ICE surge and demands from the federal government for the personal data of Minnesota citizens, there is renewed focus on privacy issues inherent in government data. The vast majority of that data is personal — that is, about individuals. 

These issues revolve around two competing values: data privacy (the protection of  personal information), and public access to government data. A third factor, a pragmatic one, must also be considered: the government’s need to collect and use personal data to do its work. Juggling those competing interests is the major reason why the Data Practices Act is over 160 pages long. 

In this complex context, MNOG strives for balance: achieving government accountability as well as openness through access to government data. We also address new challenges, including rapidly changing technology and big data. 

Our legislative activity on those issues has become more difficult because of how the legislature currently does business. For example, public testimony on complex issues is often limited to no more than two minutes. Language to severely limit public access to data about government operations increasingly slips in unnoticed because it is not introduced as a bill, has no public hearings and is often inserted into multi-page omnibus bills. Clearly, we should all be diligent in asking legislators the purpose of the legislative language, and insist on greater transparency in how government does business. 

–Don Gemberling and Mary Pattock

MNOG is involved in two cases currently before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. 

Oral arguments were made Feb. 18th in our organization’s lawsuit against the city of Minneapolis over “coaching” data. The lawsuit stems from a 2021 request MNOG (then named MNCOGI) made under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act for, among other things, data “in which coaching is described as a form of discipline.”  You can listen to the recording here.  More about that case is on our website.

On Jan. 26, the court heard oral arguments in a case brought by the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association against the POST Board for releasing names and dates of birth of undercover police officers in 2024. MNOG filed an amicus brief in the case. You can read more about that on our website.  An audio recording of the oral argument can be found at the Court of Appeals website.

–MaryJo Webster

1.    ICE isn’t just tracking your phone. The surveillance technology goes further than that. (Sahan Journal) Cooper Quintin, senior technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “We’ve built this horrifying Orwellian surveillance industry over the last 10 to 20 years, and now ICE is buying access to all of it.”

2.    Man arrested in immigration raid charged with cyberstalking (Sahan Journal) Brennen VanderVeen, a First Amendment attorney with the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression: “If you hack into a government database and then you release the information, that’s going to be a problem. But you are just aware of information and you’re sharing it, that’s not generally going to be a crime.” 

3.    ICE Is Watching You (Tressie McMillan Cottom, New York Times) The agency wants to connect a range of databases, which could include those with your biometric data, employment data, driving records, credit reports, tax data, social media data, cellphone location data and automated license plate reader data. 

4.    The Paramilitary ICE and CBP Units at the Center of Minnesota's Killings (Ali Winston, Wired) If the practice of shielding certain agents’ identities in court continues, however, all the body-cam footage in the world may severely limit the public’s ability to hold agents accountable at all. 

5.   Why does the DOJ want Minnesota voter data? (Jill Burcum, Minnesota Star Tribune) Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon: “what [Bondi and the Trump administration] really want, which is the data, the personal sensitive data on millions of people. They want Social Security numbers. They want driver’s license numbers and the like. … they want all of the private stuff.

–Hal Davis