Bill to limit public access to personnel performance records draws split testimony

Senator Bob Paulson introduced Senate Bill 2350, which would amend North Dakota law to exempt from open‑records disclosure certain employee performance and discipline records for up to three years (or until termination) and extend the period during which internal investigations may remain exempt from 75 days to 180 days.

Senator Paulson said the exemption is intended to allow public employers to pursue merit‑based compensation and to give supervisors space to provide candid corrective feedback without the records immediately becoming public. “I cannot imagine trying to be a leader of people if I knew that everything I put in writing would be available to be read by the entire unit,” Paulson told the committee.

Several municipal officials testified in favor. Minot Alderman Mike Blessum said the bill would let local leaders reward high performers and hold marginal performers accountable, and argued current open‑records rules hamstring efforts to introduce merit pay. Minot City Manager Harold Stewart said the city seeks transparency but also needs to protect internal investigative processes so employees feel safe participating; he described instances where staff hesitated to provide information during investigations because they feared public disclosure. The North Dakota League of Cities supported the bill and asked for a “due pass.”

Opposition included the North Dakota Newspaper Association, which said public employees are paid by taxpayers and their records are a public matter; executive director Cecile Wierman urged a do‑not‑pass and warned the bill could be used to shield misconduct. The newspaper association suggested alternative approaches, such as tailored access for accredited news organizations, but opposed a broad statutory closure. Jack McDonald of the newspaper and broadcaster associations underscored that many records requests come from private citizens and that some other statutes already require public evaluations for high‑level public officials.

State agencies raised operational concerns. Molly Harrington, chief people officer at the Office of Management and Budget, said agencies rely on personnel records for hiring and that a broad, discretionary exemption could impede background checks, create litigation risk, and produce inconsistent application across agencies because the bill lacks a clear, uniform definition of what constitutes performance or discipline records. The Department of Corrections repeated those concerns and noted federal obligations under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) require pre‑employment inquiries into prior misconduct at other detention facilities; department staff worried a broad exemption could impede compliance if other jurisdictions withhold records.

The Attorney General’s office noted overlapping consideration of similar language in a prior House bill (H.B. 1185) and recalled a 2021 AG opinion that permitted redaction of attorney work product from investigative notes but required disclosure of factual narrative parts of an investigator’s documents.

No committee vote was recorded at the hearing. Supporters asked that the committee consider narrow, targeted exemptions that preserve transparency for misconduct while protecting supervisors’ ability to provide candid feedback and enable merit pay structures.