A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact sections 44-04-18.1 and 54-23.3-07.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to an exemption for information contained in personnel records of public employees and records related to internal investigations by the department of corrections and rehabilitation.
HB 1185 would have expanded and clarified several confidentiality exemptions in North Dakota’s open records law for public employees and certain correctional records. The bill revises Section 44-04-18.1 to specify that a broader set of personal information in public employee personnel records is exempt from disclosure, including items such as home contact information, birth date, medical information, identification numbers, payroll deduction information, dependent and emergency contact details, and financial account data. It also clarifies that leave information is generally exempt while still making the amount of leave taken or accrued, and the dates of leave taken, public; leave that has been applied for but not yet taken would remain exempt until used.
The bill also adds a new exemption for records of internal investigations by public entities involving complaints of misconduct, making those records exempt until the investigation is complete, but for no longer than 75 calendar days from the complaint date. In addition, it amends the separate corrections statute to protect certain Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation internal investigation records when disclosure could identify victims, witnesses, employee sources, or confidential informants and would create a credible threat of violence or other harm. Overall, the measure would have strengthened privacy and safety protections for public employees and correctional investigation participants while narrowing access to some government records.
The bill’s impact on state law would have been to broaden the list of exempt personnel-record information and to create or reinforce time-limited confidentiality for internal investigations. It would have affected public entities, occupational and professional licensing boards, and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation by limiting what information they must disclose under public records laws. It also would have preserved public access to some leave data and maintained disclosure rules where other law requires them.
Sentiment around the bill appears to have been unfavorable in the House, where it failed on second reading by a wide margin, 10-83. No committee transcript is available, so the recorded vote is the main indicator of legislative sentiment. The lopsided defeat suggests broad concern or lack of support for expanding confidentiality exemptions, likely reflecting tension between privacy/safety interests and transparency in government records.
The main point of contention is the balance between protecting sensitive personal and investigative information and preserving public access to records. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a privacy and security measure for employees, informants, and victims, especially in correctional settings. Opponents likely objected to reducing openness in public employee records and internal investigations, particularly because the bill would have made more information exempt from disclosure and could have limited oversight of public entities.
HB 1185 would have amended North Dakota’s open records and personnel-record confidentiality statutes to expand exemptions for public employee personal information, clarify treatment of leave records, and create a time-limited exemption for internal investigation records. It would also have strengthened confidentiality protections for Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation internal investigations when disclosure could identify vulnerable individuals and create safety risks. The practical effect would have been reduced public access to specified personnel and investigative records across state and local government entities.
The bill appears to have had little support in the House, where it failed 10-83 on second reading. With no committee transcript available, the vote is the clearest evidence of sentiment, and it indicates strong opposition to the measure. The result suggests that most members were not persuaded that the proposed confidentiality expansions were warranted.
The central controversy was whether the bill struck the right balance between privacy, employee safety, and government transparency. Supporters likely emphasized protecting sensitive personal data, witnesses, victims, and correctional informants from harm or retaliation. Opponents likely focused on the public’s right to inspect government records and the risk that the bill would shield too much information about public employees and internal misconduct investigations from scrutiny.