AN ACT to create and enact a new section to chapter 44-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to designating student applications for admission to an institution of higher education as exempt records; and to declare an emergency.
Summary
HB 1542 creates a new exemption in North Dakota’s open records law for student applications for admission to institutions of higher education administered by the State Board of Higher Education. The bill makes those application records exempt from disclosure, subject to other law, and allows the records to be destroyed upon request of the applicant or, if the applicant was under 18 when the application was submitted, upon request of a parent or guardian, so long as retention requirements are still met.
The bill also limits access to these exempt records by prohibiting disclosure except for employees of an institution of higher education performing regular duties or as otherwise allowed under chapter 44-04. It is declared an emergency measure, meaning it takes effect immediately upon enactment rather than waiting for the normal effective date.
Impact
HB 1542 amends chapter 44-04 of the North Dakota Century Code by adding a new public records exemption for higher education admissions applications. The practical effect is to reduce public access to applicant records held by state higher education institutions and to give applicants and, in some cases, parents or guardians a mechanism to request destruction of those records, subject to statutory retention rules. It affects institutions under the State Board of Higher Education, their records-handling practices, and the scope of the state’s open records requirements.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House and Senate with overwhelming margins, including unanimous Senate approval and near-unanimous House approval on the final vote. The voting pattern suggests general agreement that the privacy protections for student admissions records were appropriate.
Contention
No committee debate or transcript was provided, and the voting history shows little visible opposition. The only notable dissent came from two House members on an earlier second-reading vote, but the final passage was unanimous in the Senate and nearly unanimous in the House. Any potential point of contention would likely center on the balance between student privacy and public transparency under North Dakota’s open records laws, but the available record does not show sustained opposition.