Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Informational hearing examines burden of anonymous and large data requests on schools; HF 1999 aims to add accountability
Summary
In an informational presentation, Representative Greene outlined HF 1999 to address anonymous and large data requests that districts say consume staff time and resources; supporters proposed requiring inspection scheduling and allowing districts to close requests if inspectors do not appear.
The House Education Policy Committee heard House File 19 99 informationally on March 26, 2025, a proposal aimed at balancing public access to government data with the administrative burden large or anonymous data requests impose on school districts and other government entities.
Representative Greene said the public’s right to request government data is important but that a recent increase in requests has imposed "significant strain on valuable school resources." She described multiple district reports of anonymous requests where staff prepared large data sets that were never inspected, citing examples of districts estimating thousands of dollars in staff time spent on abandoned requests.
District witnesses described specific costs. Jeff Elstad, superintendent of Owatonna Public Schools, said the district received 12 anonymous requests over three years; nine were abandoned after preparation and cost the district about $30,000 in staff time. Elstad also testified about a recent redaction effort that cost the district in excess of $400,000, which he said equated to the labor of roughly four full‑time equivalents.
Advocates and experts spoke about existing Data Practices Act guidance and court decisions. Matt Ealing of Minnesotans for Open Government told the committee the amendment proposed with HF 19 99 largely codifies existing guidance and case law about breaking large requests into components to make them manageable. He and other witnesses supported codifying the practice that allows a government entity to provide data in components and require inspection for each component.
Representative Greene described draft language under consideration: require requesters be given at least five days' notice to inspect prepared data, and allow a request to be closed if the requester does not appear for the scheduled inspection. Committee members and testifiers debated whether to put "rolling production" language into statute; some witnesses recommended removing that sentence from the draft because similar procedures already exist in guidance and rulemaking.
No committee vote was taken; the item was presented informationally and sponsors said they would coordinate with Judiciary Committee chairs and with the Office of the State Auditor and other stakeholders to refine statutory language and implementation details.
