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 the records as personnel records that are subject to release. The custodian has also properly redacted the employee’s personal contact information, personnel number, information related to marital status and dependents, date of birth, Social Security number, driver’s license number, insurance coverage, tax information or withholdings, payroll deductions, and net pay. But the custodian has failed to redact some information that could allow someone to determine the employee’s home address. As discussed in the opinion, the employee’s privacy interest in this information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The custodian’s decision to release the job applications of current employees is consistent with the FOIA. But before release of such records, the custodian must redact the City of Lowell employees’ marital status, family information, and personal contact information, including personal phone numbers, email addresses, and home addresses. As for the job applications of unsuccessful candidates or candidates who have been offered but have not accepted, I lack authority under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to review the custodian’s decision because those documents are neither personnel records nor employee-evaluation or job-performance records.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release certain records, with redactions, as personnel records and to withhold other records as employee-evaluation records consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: The custodian’s decisions are only partially consistent with the FOIA. The custodian properly classified the officers’ personnel records, but additional redactions are required as explained in the opinion. The custodian also properly classified and withheld Officer Motsinger’s evaluation records because they did not result in his suspension or termination. As to Officer Burgess, the custodian must determine whether his resignation constituted a constructive termination and, if so, whether the remaining elements of the statutory test are satisfied. Finally, the Missouri Department of Revenue Report is not an employee-evaluation or job-performance record because it was not created by or at the behest of the employer. Rather, it is a personnel record that should be released subject to any necessary redactions.
