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 withhold the requested records consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The custodian must first determine whether each withheld complaint was solicited or unsolicited and then apply the appropriate test for disclosure. An unsolicited complaint submitted on the complainant’s own initiative is a personnel record and is subject to the balancing test for personnel records. If, however, the employer solicited the complaint or statement to evaluate the employee, and the record details the employee’s performance or lack of performance on the job, it may qualify as an employee-evaluation or job-performance record. If so, the record is not subject to disclosure unless the four-part test is satisfied.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to withhold from a wildlife officer the recording of the officer’s investigative interview consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
?
Brief Response: The FOIA specifically authorizes a public employee to gain access to his or her own personnel records and employee evaluations. While I have not been provided with a copy of the recording and therefore cannot definitively opine on its contents, the information provided suggests that the recording is the officer’s own evaluation record. Therefore, the custodian’s decision to withhold it is likely inconsistent with the FOIA. To the extent the recording is a mixed record, the custodian may need to segregate information pertaining to other employees and apply the appropriate test for disclosure to that information.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified most of the records as personnel records that are subject to release. The custodian has also properly redacted the personal contact information and identification codes; certain information related to marital status and dependents; date of birth, Social Security number, and driver’s license number; and information regarding insurance coverage, tax information or withholdings, payroll deductions, and net pay. But, as discussed in the opinion, the custodian has both over-redacted some information and under-redacted other information. Consequently, some of the custodian’s decisions are consistent with the FOIA and others are not. The custodian has properly classified the February 7, 2023, and June 7, 2023, disciplinary records as employee-evaluation records. But the custodian has incorrectly classified the July 5, 2025, performance evaluation as a personnel record that is subject to release. That document was created by the employer to evaluate the employee, and it details the employee’s performance or lack of performance on the job. Thus, it also qualifies as an employee-evaluation record. These employee-evaluation records cannot be disclosed (even if heavily redacted) unless the four-part test for release of employee-evaluation records has been met. Here, there is no information in the records to suggest the employee was suspended or terminated, so the test for release has not been met. And the custodian’s decision to release these employee-evaluation records, even in heavily redacted form, is inconsistent with the FOIA.
