IN THIS ISSUE
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance…
Open government update from the Minnesota Capitol
MNOG has been involved with multiple bills at the Minnesota Legislature this year. Here are a few things we're working on:
State contractor payment withholding (HF 3621): This bill would extend 2025-era legislation that established procedures for state agencies to withhold payments from contractors if evidence of fraud was detected. MNOG successfully advocated for removing a provision that would have made information about the withholding of payments “not public” data, and therefore not accessible to citizens or the press. The provision was struck from the bill as it made its way through the House State Government and Judiciary committees.
Open Meeting Law (HF 3295): This bill sets out guidelines for broadcasting remote meetings under the Open Meeting Law (OML) through social media platforms. Such broadcasting can already occur so long as government entities abide by the existing requirements of the OML’s remote meeting provisions, but HF 3295 adds regulations around the use of written comment features on social media platforms. MNOG met with the bill’s author to emphasize that if such written comments are submitted during an open meeting, they should be preserved as part of the meeting’s public record.
Statewide Inspector General bill (HF 1338/SF 856): Last year, MNOG was highly involved in the data classification provisions of SF 856, which would establish a statewide Office of Inspector General. MNOG worked with the authors to draft data provisions that aligned with the investigative data classifications used by other government entities, and to ensure maximum data transparency in the new agency. That work has continued with HF 1338, with MNOG submitting comments for further refinements to the legislation.
Department of Public Safety data (HF 3870/SF 3872): MNOG successfully advocated for narrowing the scope of the “private” data classification in a bill dealing with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS). As originally drafted, it would have made all data on individuals involved in any “research” activities at the department “private” and inaccessible to the public. MNOG worked with the authors and the agency to narrow the bill’s focus to just data on individuals involved in research projects housed within DPS’ Office of Justice Programs, an office that deals with crime victims.
Cannabis data classification (SF 4402): MNOG worked with the State Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) and data activist Rich Neumeister to revise this bill that makes adjustments to what data is classified as “public” at OCM. The revisions expanded the amount of public data maintained by OCM, including on applicants and license holders.
The Minnesota Legislature is entering its final deadline weeks, and more data bills are likely to receive hearings. Look for additional updates here.
–Matt Ehling
MNOG files amicus brief in case involving exemplary damaages
MNOG has filed an amicus brief at the Minnesota Court of Appeals in support of data requester Robert Cattanach. Cattanach’s Data Practices Act (DPA) lawsuit against the City of St. Paul resulted in the first award of exemplary damages for a data requester in the history of the law. MNOG’s brief supports Cattanach’s damages award and asks the Court of Appeals to affirm it.
The case began when St. Paul resident Cattanach submitted a series of DPA requests to the city related to proposed changes to Summit Avenue — a major, historic thoroughfare. After a series of data production delays, Cattanach — an attorney by profession — sued the City to obtain the data he had requested.
Ramsey County District Court Judge Patrick Diamond found that the city had willfully violated the DPA in 14 instances, and awarded Cattanach exemplary damages under the statute.
Under the DPA, litigants can sue to force the government to comply with the statute or sue for injunctive relief and actual damages. Additionally, when the government willfully violates the statute, they can sue for “exemplary damages” of $1,000-$15,000 for each violation. Exemplary damages are available as a punitive measure, to highlight and correct government wrongdoing.
The Cattanach case is important, since data requesters have infrequently sought exemplary damages and have never before been awarded such damages. If affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the case will set a valuable precedent for government accountability and the rights of public data requesters.
–Matt Ehling
We’d like to hear from you!
Newsletter readers: We’re going to occasionally include a question in this newsletter and ask all of you to respond via email at [email protected].
Here’s our first question:
Have you had problems attending open meetings either in-person or virtually? Please share your experience(s), including what government agency, where and when. There is a bill in the Legislature this session that will address some Open Meeting Law (OML) issues and knowing what problems others have encountered will help us advocate for improvements to the OML.
-MaryJo Webster
How MNOG can help you
Minnesotans for Open Government (MNOG) prioritizes educating the public and helping citizens and journalists get access to government data. Volunteer board members have extensive experience and are available to help answer questions.
Access is key to knowing what the government is doing, and why they are doing it. Unfortunately the state and federal laws that regulate access to government data often tend to be complex and often use language that many people find intimidating, or unfortunately, downright boring. This includes the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (DPA), the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the federal Privacy Act of 1974, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), the Minnesota Medical Records Act and the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
Over several years MNOG board members have litigated issues presented by these laws, helped others with litigation, assisted citizens with how to understand and use them, provided history of how these laws came to be, and written numerous articles about them.
This year, there has been much public discussion about instances of ICE agents stopping citizen constitutional observers and addressing them by name. In some cases, ICE then appears at the observer's home and threatens a variety of actions. Understanding how this can be "legally" happening requires some knowledge of the interplay among the federal DPPA. Minnesota statutes that regulate use and dissemination of driver license and motor vehicle data, and the Data Practices Act.
MNOG offers help on sorting out and understanding these and other government information issues. It is a core part of our mission. Keep in mind we are all volunteers. Just ask us to share our expertise. Our service is free but when we provide something of value, please send us a tax-deductible donation.
–Don Gemberling
Got stories about trials, tribulations or success with access to government data? We’d love to share these in this newsletter. Send us an email at [email protected].
Five interesting stories I read last month
Battle over fraud report continues as DHS defends redactions (KSTP) The report on fraud from the health consultant Optum is so heavily redacted that state lawmakers can’t read most of it. The Minnesota House voted 107-27 on March 12 to require release of the full Optum report to legislators, but not the public.
As Trump pushes deportations, immigration data becomes harder to find (AP) The administration has been releasing less reliable, carefully vetted data than its predecessors. The Department of Homeland Security has put out numbers in news releases “that purport to be statistics with no statistical backup and the numbers have jumped all over the place.”
Jeers to secretive student-athlete payments (Rochelle Olson, Minnesota Star Tribune) The public has a great interest here in ensuring equity, even in sports, so I’m with Matt Ehling, a board member for Minnesotans for Open Government, who said the information should be public: “If they’re a public institution and they’re paying funds out, the public needs to understand what’s going on.”
A new lawsuit alleges DHS illegally tracked and intimidated observers (MPR) The suit alleges federal agents are unconstitutionally retaliating against people lawfully observing and recording federal immigration enforcement operations by gathering their personal information and labeling them domestic terrorists. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to stop DHS from collecting records on people and from "threatening, harassing, and otherwise retaliating against" them.
Data center proposals are moving faster than policy in Minnesota (Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and 11 other orgs, Star Tribune) These projects are moving forward under a cloak of secrecy, often described in vague terms such as “technology park” or “light industrial development.” Even when city officials state that it is a data center, it’s often hard to get details beyond that basic fact.
–Hal Davis
Support our work
We will always fight for democracy. Your donation fuels our mission to advocate for public access. Give today!