Judiciary committee advances bill to curb anonymous public-data requests to schools, expands MDE inspector general powers

A Senate Judiciary Committee on April 4 adopted an author’s amendment to Senate File 2981 aimed at limiting anonymous public data requests to school districts and clarifying investigatory powers for the Minnesota Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General.

The bill, carried by Sen. Mark Swadzinski, would prohibit anonymous requests for public data from school districts and allow districts to require identification credentials set by the district. The author's amendment broadened those identification requirements to apply to other political entities as well, and the committee adopted the A2 amendment by voice vote.

The measure is framed by supporters as a response to a recent pattern of voluminous or potentially malicious requests that impose financial and staffing burdens on schools. "This shields school districts from superfluous and potentially malicious public data requests that have put financial pressure on school budgets and wasted the time of school staff to comply," Swadzinski told the committee. He cited an example in which a district spent roughly $40,000 responding to repeated anonymous requests.

Representatives of the Minnesota Department of Education testified that the bill includes provisions to strengthen the department's Office of Inspector General (OIG). Ado Shuni, director of government relations for MDE, said the OIG is charged with "detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in MDE programs" and that the bill would clarify investigatory authorities, confidentiality rules for investigatory data, access to participant records, and expanded sanctioning authority. "When the OIG detects fraud or other misuse of public funds, the inspector general works with law enforcement to partner on any investigations and in support of subsequent civil and criminal prosecution," Shuni said.

Open-government advocates raised concerns about how investigatory records would be handled after an inquiry concludes and whether applying criminal-investigative protections (Minn. Stat. § 13.82 was cited in testimony) might change the public availability of records. Rich Neumeister urged clarity on whether inactive investigatory records would become public under Minn. Stat. § 13.39 once the matter was closed.

Committee members questioned specific mechanics of the data-request changes, including: whether a district may suspend further work on a request until a requester inspects or pays for already-assembled records; how and when districts provide notice that responsive records are available; and how rulemaking authority for academic standards in a related section interacts with existing expedited-rulemaking statutes.

MDE staff said the amendment was intended to balance preventing abusive requests with preserving public access. Neumeister, who described work with open-government stakeholders, said the amendment would allow entities to produce an initial portion of a requested dataset and suspend further production if the requester did not pick it up after a five-day notice. He and others said the change reflects long-standing flexibility in Minnesota data-practices law.

The committee laid Senate File 2981 over (no final committee referral at this stop) so it could be incorporated with changes before moving forward.

Votes and formal committee action on the bill included adoption of the A2 amendment and a motion to lay the bill over for later consideration.