As I usually do, Whistleblower pored through the latest newsletter of the state Department of Administration’s Information Policy Analysis Division within minutes of it landing in my inbox. The division is the main agency that weighs in on what’s public and what’s not when it comes to state records. The Legislature didn’t pass a general data practices bill this session, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t tinker with the law. As usual, most of the changes are about information sharing between agencies and making more information secret.

To wit: names, addresses, driver’s license numbers and dates of birth of hunters and fisherpeople will no longer be public:

Section 13.7931 subdivision 6, and section 84.0874
(both new): Classify the name, address, driver’s license
number and date of birth for individuals seeking a license
from the Department of Natural Resources as private data,
but may be disclosed to law enforcement. Except for a
driver’s license number, the data may be shared with other
government entities and for natural resources recruitment
and retention. Effective March 1, 2010. (Chapter 176, article
2, sections 1 and 4)

The University of Minnesota gets to keep a lid on some of its financial dealings:

Section 13.3215, subdivisions 1 and 3 (both new):
Classify certain financial, business, or proprietary data
collected, created, received, or maintained by the University
of Minnesota in connection with investments as
nonpublic data and lists exceptions that are public. Effective
May 23, 2009. (Chapter 178, article 2, section 1)

On the other hand, despite the concerted efforts of the city of Duluth, the names and addresses of pet owners became public once again in May. The administration commissioner “disapproved” the city’s attempt to keep them from public view. The subject of whether this information should be private inspired some spirited debate in this blog. The reporter who originally caused the public records fracas, Brandon Stahl of the Duluth News-Tribune, gives his victory speech here.

Finally, among the numerous other tweaks, here’s this doozie:

Section 609.324, subdivision 5: The notation on a driving
record that a person was convicted of patronizing a prostitute
while using a motor vehicle is public data if the person
has been convicted previously of patronizing a prostitute or
another violation under Minnesota Statutes, sections
609.324, or 609.322. (Chapter 170, section 4)

So be prepared for the next episode of Johns on Wheels.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 15th, 2009 at 6:26 pm and is filed under Civil liberties, Public records. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.