Registration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
English
French
Spanish
VietnameseRegistration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
Registration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
Registration is now open for the 2026 Fraud and Consumer Protection Summit. Click here to register.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act?
Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian incorrectly classified the June 2017 emails, incident report, personnel policy acknowledgement, and March 2017 arrest order as employee evaluations. These records are personnel records subject to disclosure unless the custodian determines that the employee’s privacy interests outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. The custodian properly classified the 2006 suspension records and records concerning the employee's handling of the June 2017 incident report as employee evaluations. Because the four-part test for release has been met, their release is consistent with the FOIA. The custodian also correctly classified the investigation records concerning the unsubstantiated allegations arising from the June 2017 incident report as employee evaluations. Because those allegations did not result in suspension or termination, the four-part test has not been met, and their release with redactions is inconsistent with the FOIA. Finally, because the remaining incident reports, supplemental reports, incident detail reports, and handwritten notes do not pertain to the employee, they are neither personnel records nor employee-evaluation records. I therefore lack authority under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to opine on their disclosure.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act?
Brief Response: In Opinion No. 2025-060, I reviewed a similar request concerning these records and concluded that the records at issue included both personnel and employee-evaluation records; that most of the records were subject to disclosure, provided that certain exempt employee information, including date of birth and personal contact information, was redacted; and that information contained in employee-evaluation records relating to an allegation for which Captain Ware was exonerated should be withheld, while information relating to the sustained allegation should be disclosed. My opinion remains unchanged.
Question: Do the provisions of Act 991 of 2025 affect A.C.A. § 14-61-111 and the election of a mayor in a city manager form of government?
Brief Response: Act 991 amended A.C.A. § 7-5-106 to require a runoff general election when no candidate for a municipal office receives a majority of the votes cast. But A.C.A. § 7-5-106 expressly provides that the term “municipal office” does not include offices of cities having a city manager form of government. Additionally, A.C.A. § 7-5-106 states that it “does not apply to election of members of the boards of directors and other officials of cities having a city manager form of government.” Thus, because the elections of city officials in cities having a city manager form of government fall outside the scope of A.C.A. § 7-5-106, Act 991 did not change the manner in which a mayoral candidate is elected in the city manager form of government, nor did it amend, repeal, or otherwise affect A.C.A. § 14-61-111. Arkansas Code § 14-61-111 continues to govern the circumstances under which a candidate for mayor in a city operating under the city manager form of government may be elected without receiving a majority of the votes cast.
