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 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.
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’s decision is partially consistent with the FOIA. The responsive records contain both personnel records and employee-evaluation or job-performance records. The custodian has properly redacted certain exempt information from the personnel records, including the employee’s driver’s license number, date of birth, Social Security number, employee identification number, marital status, personal phone number, home address, and personal email address. However, at least one additional redaction should be made, and the basis for another redaction is unclear. The custodian has also incorrectly cited A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) as the basis for all of the redactions. But that exemption applies only to personal contact information. The remaining redactions are exempt under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12)’s balancing test. The custodian has also properly classified certain records as the employee’s evaluation or job-performance records, and she intends to release those records with redactions. However, because there is no indication that the employee was suspended or terminated, the test for release of evaluation records has not been satisfied. Therefore, those records should be withheld in their entirety.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records with redactions consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The custodian’s decision to release the records as redacted is partially consistent with the FOIA. Some of the records have been redacted but should be released unredacted: the new hire letter; the birth certificate, except that the employee’s date of birth and his parents’ names, addresses, and dates of birth should remain redacted; the Confirmation of Psychological Evaluation form; job history; employee’s middle name; and educational information, except for the college transcript, which should remain redacted. The custodian’s decision to redact the employee’s height and weight would not be consistent with the FOIA if the department requires officers to meet height or weight standards as a condition of employment. If the department does not impose such requirements, this information must remain redacted. It is unclear why the employee’s activities history and a court order concerning a name change have been redacted. The custodian should review whether redactions are warranted based on the analysis contained in the opinion. If either the number listed under “Applicant” in the top left corner of the 2026 fingerprint form or the “ORI” number on that form is a security number, it should be redacted. Finally, the job reference notes from the “Faulkner County Sheriff’s Office” are best classified as employee-evaluation or job-performance records that should be withheld from release.
