The following bills were introduced that dealt with Data Practices, Open Meeting Law, and general open government issues:

HF No. 723

Data contained on an event data recorder are “personal data” of the owner of the motor vehicle, and shall not be retrieved except in seven circumstances, including after the presentation of a warrant.  No person may alter or delete data after an accident, unless a “reasonable amount of time” has passed since the accident.

HF 798

Certain data maintained as part of the mileage-based user fees test are classified as nonpublic or private data, including names of participants, applications of the purchase or rental of GPS devices, and road usage data.

Classifying certain contract information related to Department of Transportation projects.

HF 809

Repealing the administrative remedy for Data Practices violations through the Office of Administrative Hearings.  The District Court remedy remains.

SF No 638

Data maintained by the Department of Administration that identifies an individual with a disability relative to certain services is private data.

SF No 681

Broadening the definition of data classified as “security information” to include the mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, and GPS locations of members of a crime prevention program.

SF No 745

Existing library user data classifications cover data held by vendors who are providing electronic data services under contract with a library.

SF No 810

Data on applicants, users, and customers of public transit collected by the Met Council are private data.

SF No 822

Conference committee negotiations must be open to the public; meetings between the senate majority leader and the speaker of the house to negotiate the state budget must be open to the public.

HF No. 584

The bill would modify Minnesota Statutes 13.72 to classify data on “applicants, users, and customers” of public transit collected by the Metropolitan Council as “private data on individuals.”

HF No. 604

The bill would amend Minnesota Statutes 13.43 Subd. 2 to include a broader definition of those “public employees” subject to data disclosures under Chapter 13.  The definition would add “heads or directors of departments, divisions, bureaus, or boards; and any employee that supervises or manages three or more employee” and “athletic directors; chief financial officers; directors, assistant directors, or associate directors whose duties include at least 50 percent time in administration, personnel, supervision, evaluation, or curriculum.”

HF No. 621

Data maintained by the Department of Administration that identifies an individual with a disability, or a family member of the same are private data.

HF 653

The Open Meeting Law would not prohibit members of a public body from participating in a social media forum, but no votes could be taken by means of a social media forum.

HF 695

Existing library user data classifications cover data held by vendors who are providing electronic data services under contract with a library.

SF 433

Access to drivers’ license photos by coroners or medical examiners established.

SF 527

The Open Meeting Law would not prohibit members of a public body from participating in a social media forum, but no votes could be taken by means of a social media forum.  Senate companion to HF 653.

The following Data Practices-related bill will be introduced in the Minnesota State Senate on February 11, 2013:

SF No. 385.  LPR data to be classified as “confidential” or “protected nonpublic” data if either a vehicle, its owner, or an occupant is the subject of an open criminal investigation.

Other LPR data must be destroyed if it does meet the criteria above, or else destroyed at the time that an active investigation is closed, if charges are not filed.  Law enforcement agencies using LPR devices must maintain a log of the locations of their LPR units, the times of day when those readers collect data, and the aggregate number of vehicles/plates recorded.  All such “log” data is to be classified as public data.

The following bills relating to the Minnesota Data Practices Act were introduced in the Minnesota Legislature between January 28th and February 7th, 2013:

HF No. 183   The responsible authority of a government agency shall establish procedures to ensure that data on individuals is accurate, and to establish safeguards for data access.  Criminal penalties are established for unauthorized access to data; notice and reporting provisions are established.

SF No. 211   The responsible authority of a government agency shall establish procedures to ensure that data on individuals is accurate, and to establish safeguards for data access.  Criminal penalties are established for unauthorized access to data; notice and reporting provisions are established.

SF No. 210  LPR data is classified as “private data on individuals” or “nonpublic data.”  LPR data must be destroyed within 24 hours unless the data identify a stolen vehicle, a vehicle owner in warrant status, or the data are active investigative data.

MNCOGI has taken a public position regarding the status of LPR data.  Find out more on our 2013 Legislative Issues page.

On January 29, 2013, the Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee will take up SF No. 60, a bill that proposes to make citizen e-mail addresses  submitted to government entities “not public” data under the Minnesota Data Practices Act.  Such information includes e-mail addresses submitted for snow-plowing and other types of notification.

Last week, the House Civil Law Committee heard testimony from the author of the House companion bill, and referred the matter to the body’s Data Practices sub-committee for further deliberation.

The House version of the bill (HF No. 20) was amended last week to remove language that allowed e-mail addresses to be shared for “government purposes.”

MNCOGI has taken the position that e-mail addresses submitted for notification purposes should remain public data, but that government entities should notify citizen submitters that their data will be publicly available under the Data Practices Act.