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 1: Are Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made by an out-of-state entity using an Arkansas citizen’s name, address, and limited power of attorney valid under Arkansas law?
Brief Response: A FOIA request made by an out-of-state entity using an Arkansas citizen’s power of attorney (POA) is valid only if the POA instrument grants authority over a subject recognized by the Uniform Power of Attorney Act (UPOAA) and the requested records relate to that authority. A limited POA that merely authorizes the entity to make FOIA requests does not, by itself, create sufficient authority under the UPOAA to submit a request.
Question 2: Does a public school district comply with Arkansas law when it provides the items requested in a FOIA request for pickup at its district offices?
Brief Response: Generally, yes, if the requester has not requested that copies be mailed or asked for the records in another medium or format that the FOIA requires the district to provide. A district may ordinarily make copies available for pickup if the requester has not asked to receive them by mail. If the requester asks to receive copies by mail, the FOIA probably requires the district to mail them. The district must also honor requests for copies in a medium in which the record is readily available or in a format to which it is readily convertible with the district’s existing software.
Question 3: Upon receipt of a FOIA request for any publicly disclosed or published items or material, may a public school district simply refer the requester to its website or other education-related database for the information requested?
Brief Response: A district may refer the requester to its website or another database for publicly available records, but that referral alone satisfies the FOIA only when those online materials comprise all responsive, nonexempt records. If the district maintains additional responsive records, it must provide access to those records if the requester requests them.
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.
