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 certain requested records under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?
Brief Response: This request poses several specific questions that extend beyond asking whether the custodian’s decision regarding employee-related records is consistent with the FOIA. I cannot address those questions because they fall outside the limited authority granted to this Office under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). Furthermore, several categories of records identified in the request, such as records-retention schedules, destruction logs, audit logs, and metadata, likely do not constitute personnel or evaluation records. Therefore, any custodial decisions concerning those records likewise fall outside the scope of my review under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). The only decision that appears to fall within my statutory authority to review is the Little Rock Police Department’s determination that certain requested internal-affairs, vehicle-pursuit, vehicle-accident, use-of-force, and investigative records are not subject to disclosure under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1). Although I have not reviewed the records at issue, I can say that records created by or at the behest of the Little Rock Police Department to evaluate employee conduct generally qualify as employee-evaluation records. At the same time, records should not be classified as employee-evaluation records solely because they were reviewed during or included in an internal-affairs investigation. Rather, the custodian must classify each responsive record according to its content and purpose and then apply the appropriate test governing its release.
Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the personnel records with redactions and to withhold the employee-evaluation or job-performance records 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 custodian has properly redacted certain exempt information from the employee’s personnel records, including driver’s license number, date of birth, Social Security number, employee identification number, passport number, personal phone number, home address, personal email address, financial and bank account information, medical information, and certain family information. However, additional redactions are required for information concerning family members and dependents; tax withholdings, deductions, and exemptions; health, dental, and vision insurance coverage; and the contingent beneficiary. In addition, the employee’s academic transcript is exempt from release. The custodian has improperly redacted information regarding the employee’s race. It is also unclear why the custodian redacted the employee’s work phone number, certain information in the “comments” section, and information concerning special skills or training for emergencies. As for the custodian’s decision to withhold the evaluation records, I have neither reviewed those records nor been provided with information sufficient to determine whether the statutory test for disclosure has been met. Accordingly, I express no opinion on the custodian’s decision to withhold them. However, in the opinion, I set forth the applicable test for release of evaluation records and discuss how that test may apply to the circumstances described in this request.
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.
