Press Releases

Question: Is the custodian’s decision to release the requested records consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?

Brief Response: In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified the citizen-complaint form as a personnel record that is subject to release. The custodian has also properly classified the disciplinary records as employee-evaluation records. And because the four-part test for release of employee-evaluation records appears to be met, the custodian’s decision to release those records is also consistent with the FOIA.

Question 1: What is the legal meaning and intent of Act 1018 of 2013?

Question 2: How does this Act apply to the voting procedures for turning a dry defunct township wet?

Question 3: Given the dissolution of townships, what is the appropriate procedure for conducting a local option election in a previously dry area?

Brief Response: To answer the first three questions together—and as discussed further in the opinion—local option alcohol elections follow the process under A.C.A. § 3-8-602, which incorporates other local option election statutes. The extent to which such other statutes apply depends on whether the local option election is special.

Question 4: Are there two possible paths for a local option election: (1) reinstating an old township solely for the purpose of holding an election, or (2) conducting a local option election within the municipality that encompasses the defunct township?

Brief Response: While it is unclear under what authority a city could temporarily reinstate an old township for a local option election, a city has one primary path if it has a defunct voting district within its boundaries: the process under A.C.A. § 3-8-602—which may vary depending on whether the election is special.

Question 5: How does the concept of a “defunct voting district” apply in this context? Specifically, when a municipality is located within the boundaries of a former dry voting district that exists within a wet county, what process must be followed to permit the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages under Ark. Code Ann. § 3-8-602?

Brief Response: As discussed in the opinion, such a municipality would follow the process set forth in A.C.A. § 3-8-602, which only authorizes the sale of beer, malt beverages, vinous beverages, and spiritous liquor for on-premises consumption.

Question 6: If a dry vote was previously conducted in an area that is now considered defunct, does that dry designation remain in effect unless there is a superseding vote?

Question 7: What constitutes a “superseding vote” in this context?

Brief Response: To answer questions 6 and 7 together, the applicable local option alcohol statutes do not use the phrase “superseding vote.” But if an area is a “defunct voting district,” one must use the local option process for defunct voting districts under A.C.A. § 3-8-602 (which incorporates other local-option statutes).

Question 8: What are the procedural requirements for initiating such a vote under the current statutory framework?

Question 9: Does Act 1018 of 2013 provide a means for municipalities within defunct townships to conduct a local option election independently, or would a county-wide vote be required?

Brief Response: To answer questions 8 and 9 together—and as discussed further in the opinion—A.C.A. § 3-8-602 applies. And the extent to which other statutes apply, largely depends on whether the election in question is special.

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 North Little Rock Police Department’s custodian of records has determined that the records should be released with certain redactions. I cannot determine whether the custodian’s decision to redact that information is consistent with the FOIA because I was not provided with an unredacted copy of the documents. As to your specific objections—and for reasons discussed in this opinion— the custodian should release the employment-evaluation records if (1) the former employee resigned in the face of “certain, impending termination,” (2) the redacted records formed the basis for the “constructive termination,” and (3) the public has a compelling interest in the records’ disclosure.