WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 4727

Access by facility patients or clients to personnel data on employees of secure treatment facilities restricted.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Mary Franson and 4 co-sponsors

The bill limits access to certain personnel data of staff at secure treatment and state correctional facilities, restricting details like education, prior jobs, payroll, and discip

Introduction and first reading, referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
#correctionsandcorrectionsdepartment #datapracticesandprivacy #governmentaloperations-state
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 4727

Summary of HF 4727 (2025-2026) – Access by facility patients or clients to personnel data on employees of secure treatment facilities restricted

Purpose and intent

HF 4727 proposes to restrict access to certain personnel data of employees who work at secure treatment facilities, state correctional facilities, and Department of Corrections (DOC) staff directly involved in community offender supervision. The bill authorizes state government entities to limit disclosures of sensitive data to facility patients, clients, corrections inmates, or others who reasonably might use the information to harass, intimidate, or assault the employees. The overarching goal is to protect employees from harassment or harm by limiting access to specific identifying or sensitive information.

Key provisions and changes

  • Scope of restricted data
    The bill narrows public access to certain personnel data for:

    • Employees of secure treatment facilities (as defined in §253B.02, subd. 18a, and §253D.02, subd. 13)
    • Employees of state correctional facilities
    • DOC staff directly involved in supervising offenders in the community

  • Types of data restricted (new text added under §13.43, subd. 5a)
    Information that may be restricted includes:

    1. The place where an employee’s previous education or training occurred
    2. The place of prior employment
    3. Payroll timesheets or similar data (to the extent disclosure could reveal future work assignments, home address or telephone number, nonwork location, or locations of an employee’s immediate family)
    4. For employees of a secure treatment facility: the final disposition of disciplinary actions, with specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action (as described in §13.43, subd. 2, paragraph (a), clause (5))

  • Authority to verify identity and purpose
    When a government entity receives a request for personnel data that may fall under the restricted disclosures, the entity may require the requester to identify themselves and state a reason for the request (added authority under new paragraph (b)).

  • Exclusions noted in text
    The bill explicitly references that the restrictions apply to the listed facilities and employee groups; it alters the prior categorization by removing or modifying certain data disclosure references (e.g., removal of explicit references to payroll data in some contexts, with a clarified emphasis on sensitive data).

  • Effective date
    The changes take effect the day after final enactment.

Who would be affected

  • Employees of:
    • Secure treatment facilities
    • State correctional facilities
    • DOC employees directly involved in supervising offenders in the community
  • Entities requesting state personnel data (e.g., facilities, corrections authorities, or other government bodies) when those requests are for data that may be restricted by this statute
  • Facility patients or clients (and corrections inmates or other individuals associated with facilities) who might otherwise request or obtain sensitive personnel data

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction and referral: HF 4727 introduced March 26, 2026, referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
  • Effective date: The act would become effective the day after enactment
  • Data practices process: The bill adds a requirement for requester verification and justification when requesting potentially restricted data

Potential impact and considerations

  • Protection of staff: Enhanced protection for employees from harassment or threats by limiting access to sensitive information
  • Balance with transparency: May reduce transparency for certain personnel information in contexts involving inmates, patients, or the public
  • Operational considerations: Government data request processes may need adjustments to include identity and purpose verification for restricted data requests
  • Enforcement and review: Subsection specifying final disciplinary action data may affect how disciplinary outcomes are shared within restricted categories

If you’d like, I can provide a comparison with current Minnesota data practices or outline potential implementation steps for agencies.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.