Critics: Minnesota bill eliminates liability and emboldens government to keep public records private – InForum

Open government advocates are alarmed by a Minnesota bill that would block people from suing for damages when the government unfairly denies public records.

The bill (SF4949/HF4647) was scheduled to be considered by the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee on Friday, but was withdrawn late Thursday, March 21, after opposition from government watchdogs and the Minnesota Judiciary Coalition. Despite the bill's committee deadline on Friday, the provision could slip into another bill later in Congress.

Government transparency advocates say the bill, authored by Hennepin County officials and touted as a modernization of data storage practices, would do much more than update data retention laws. claims.

As is often the case with controversial provisions, a key part of the bill that would eliminate damages for public records violations is buried under a mountain of boring language.

“Frankly, I think they're counting on that,” said Matt Ehring, director of the Minnesota Coalition for Government Information, known as MNCOGI. “This matter is so in the weeds that I don’t even know if the people who are introducing the bill even know about it.”

The bill changes who can sue for damages for violating the Data Practices Act, which requires the government to release most records.

Ehring said Minnesota's sunshine law is better than most other states in terms of relief. People can sue to obtain records. If you are unfairly refused, you will receive compensation for damages. And even more damages will be paid if a public official intentionally violates the law. These exemplary damages are intended to punish the defendant and deter others from making the same mistake.

Under the bill, most people, including journalists and ordinary citizens, would not be able to sue for damages.

Open records advocates say the bill contains several provisions that appear to target independent journalist Tony Webster, an occasional contributor to Reform.

“What they're trying to do is prevent people like Tony Webster and members of the press and other members of the public from suing for damages (and) punitive damages for ignoring requests for public data. It's about stopping it,” Ealing said.

Professor Webster is investigating whether trespass laws are being used to exclude homeless people, particularly Black, Indigenous and other people of color, from county libraries. County officials told Webster it would take nine months and $4,000 to collect the trespass records.

“It seemed ridiculous,” Webster said.

The county denied his request for a copy of the trespass notice, so he filed suit. Meanwhile, county officials issued a money order overnight because they said they could have compiled the incident report if they paid a sort of down payment of $217. For months, he was unable to retrieve data. Finally, in January, a judge ordered the county to issue a trespass notice and ruled that the county redacted too much data from incident reports. He said he received the information in February, but it was missing data.

He is scheduled to go to trial on April 8 over allegations of missing data and how he handled the county's requests. He is seeking damages and attorney's fees.

“Their actions are alarming,” Webster said. “Data governance in Hennepin County is in complete disarray, and legislative changes that weaken accountability are not the answer.”

This is the second time he has sued the county, the first of which he won over surveillance technology.

Hennepin County spokeswoman Carolyn Marrinan said in an email that “we can certify that this was not an attempt to obstruct journalists' requests for data,” but had no further comment and a public hearing has since been held. He declined to comment further, saying Hennepin County officials would testify on the bill. cancel.

Hennepin County officials met with Ehring before the session began, and Ehring said his group, the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, will be keeping the names of library users who are children private, except in part. , warned that it would oppose most of the bill.

“This youth data feels like a Trojan horse for the rest,” Ehring said. “I think the lawyers have wrapped this up in a speedy trial. I think they're assuming a lot of it won't be read.”

The government's damages could range from $1,000 to $15,000 per violation, so the amount could go up if the government refuses to turn over large amounts of documents, Ealing said. Stated.

“I believe that's why Hennepin County is trying to reduce this problem,” he said.

Lawyer Paul Bosman, who is also a board member of MNCOGI, said it would be difficult to sue the government for records without the possibility of damages.

“Damages create an incentive to try to settle the case before it becomes a lawsuit,” Bosman said.

This bill does not fix a broken system, but removes penalties for violations.

“There are words that have to do with excrement and livestock, but I don't think we're allowed to use them,” Bosman said.

This bill would also impact MNCOGI. It's been nearly three years since the group filed a lawsuit against the city of Minneapolis over data on police disciplinary records that the city says is private. The public records organization believes the city intentionally violated its requirements and is seeking punitive damages.

Webster said the bill appears to be designed to be “as misleading as possible” and that Hennepin County's fact sheet on the bill does not mention ending damages for violations. He obtained a copy of the bill, opened its metadata, and discovered it had been written by Kristi Lahti-Johnson, the county's data compliance officer, who is a defendant in the lawsuit.

“A lot of it seems to be related to the issues going on in my case,” Webster said.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Bonnie Westlin (DFL-Plymouth) and Rep. Sandra Feist (DFL-New Brighton). Westlin said through a DFL spokesperson that the bill was withdrawn because “stakeholders had concerns about the bill,” and that they would continue to work on it during the interim period. “Probably… we'll see a bill debated next year.”

Feist said Thursday he did not have time to talk about the bill. The bill did not receive a hearing in the House.

MNCOGI also opposes a proposed amendment to the Public Records Act that would require the government to retain certain records for a significant period of time.

“They seem to be messing with the definition of what is an official record a little bit,” Ehring said. “The amendments need to be scrutinized more thoroughly to clarify what is intended.”