Did the City of Rogers properly classify and redact a former police employee's personnel file under the Arkansas FOIA?

Plain-English summary

Jennifer Waymack, senior staff attorney for the City of Rogers, asked the AG to review the City's decision regarding a FOIA request for a former police-department employee's "employment file and other employment related documents." The subject of the records claimed a substantial privacy interest and no compelling public interest in their release. Waymack provided redacted and unredacted copies of the responsive documents (Exhibits A through T, with Exhibit K not submitted) along with the City's classification of each.

The AG concluded the City got most of the calls right. The bulk of Exhibit A (screen captures from the police department's personnel management software) was correctly classified as personnel records. But three sets of records were misclassified or under-redacted:

• Exhibits B-D were incident reports, not personnel records. Under Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff, police incident reports are public records subject to disclosure in their entirety. Treating them as personnel records and redacting portions was inconsistent with the FOIA. They needed to be released in full.

• Exhibit S was a resignation letter. AG opinions have consistently classified resignation letters as personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12), not as employee-evaluation records. Once classified correctly, the Young v. Rice balancing test had to apply. The AG saw nothing in the resignation letter that would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. So the letter had to be released, not withheld.

• Exhibit G needed additional redaction. The "Additional Information" box at the bottom of the first page contained information that should have been redacted before release.

The AG also flagged a judgment-call issue. The personnel number of a former employee long separated from the City might or might not need redaction under § 25-19-105(b)(11) and AG opinions on personnel-number protection. The AG said the custodian should weigh whether to redact, given the time elapsed and the reduced security risk for an ex-employee.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Why incident reports are not personnel records

Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff, 307 Ark. 457 (1991), is the leading Arkansas authority that police incident reports are public records subject to broad disclosure under the FOIA. They are not personnel records, even when they describe an officer's conduct, because their primary function is documenting a public incident, not evaluating the officer. Treating them as personnel records would limit disclosure to the Young v. Rice balancing test; treating them as public records means full disclosure, with only narrow redactions for items like undercover-officer identification or victim contact information.

The AG concluded that Exhibits B-D fell into the incident-report category. The City's decision to classify them as personnel records and redact portions was therefore wrong on two counts: classification (they are public records, not personnel records) and disclosure (they should be released in full, not in redacted form).

This is a recurring pattern with police personnel files. Documents like incident reports, arrest reports, and dispatch logs end up in the personnel file even though they are independently public records. Custodians sometimes treat the personnel-file home as decisive for classification, but the FOIA's classification rules look at the document's content and function, not its filing location.

Why resignation letters are personnel records, not evaluation records

The AG explained the difference. Employee-evaluation records (under Thomas v. Hall) are records (1) created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the employee (3) detailing the employee's performance or lack of performance. A resignation letter is the opposite: it is a record created by the employee, not the employer; it serves to terminate employment, not to evaluate; and it is fundamentally about the employee's separation, not their job performance.

Once the resignation letter is classified as a personnel record, the question is the Young v. Rice test:

Step 1. Is the privacy interest more than de minimis? Resignation letters often state reasons for leaving, which can implicate personal privacy. So a resignation letter could clear step 1.

Step 2. Is the privacy interest outweighed by public interest? The AG looked at the specific letter and found nothing that "would rise to the level of a clearly unwarranted invasion of the former employee's personal privacy." That conclusion required release.

The AG cited a long string of prior opinions taking this same position: Op. Att'y Gen. 2017-079, 2013-016, 2006-082, 2002-006, 2001-276, 99-147, 99-119, 98-122, 95-162, and 88-147. The pattern is so consistent that it functions as settled AG doctrine.

Other findings

Exhibit A (screen captures from personnel management software): Properly classified as personnel records. The AG noted "numerous and extensive redactions" but did not focus on whether each was correct, because the subject's objection was to the records' release in their entirety, not to specific redactions. The AG urged the custodian to consult prior opinions on redaction practice, citing Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-226 (leave records, additional compensation) and 2002-107 (salary and salary history).

Exhibit G: Largely correct, but the "Additional Information" box at the bottom of the first page also needed redaction under Op. Att'y Gen. 2001-080.

Personnel number of former employee: A judgment call. AG opinions have said personnel numbers should generally be redacted (Op. Att'y Gen. 2014-094, 2007-070, 2015-057, 2017-134), and § 25-19-105(b)(11) protects "data used to cause a computer or a computer system ... to perform security functions, including, but not limited to ... personal identification numbers." But the security rationale weakens when the employee has been separated from the City for a long time. The custodian should weigh the security risk and decide. The AG declined to mandate either outcome.

Exhibits E and F: Mentioned in passing. The AG referred to Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-226 (leave records and post-paycheck compensation) and 2002-107 (salary history) as guides for the custodian on redaction calls.

Exhibit K: Not submitted to the AG. The AG could not opine on it.

Common questions

What if a personnel file is full of incident reports and arrest reports?
The custodian still has to classify each document by content, not by filing location. Incident reports and arrest reports remain public records under Hengel even when they live in the personnel file. They get released in full (with narrow content-specific redactions like victim contact information, undercover-officer identification).

Why does it matter that the AG corrected the Exhibit S classification?
Because the legal tests are different. Employee-evaluation records under § 25-19-105(c)(1) require the four-part test (suspended/terminated, finality, basis, compelling public interest). If any prong fails, the record is withheld. Personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12) run through Young v. Rice with the thumb on the scale toward disclosure. A resignation letter classified as evaluation often gets withheld; classified as personnel, it usually gets released. The classification call is dispositive in many cases.

What if the former employee was suspended or terminated, not voluntarily resigned?
Then a different analysis applies. A termination notice or final decision after a suspension or termination proceeding can be an employee-evaluation record subject to the four-part test under § 25-19-105(c)(1), and disclosure depends on whether the public has a "compelling interest." The opinion does not reach that scenario because Exhibit S was a resignation, not a termination.

Are police personnel files generally more public than other personnel files?
Not formally. The same FOIA rules apply. But police files often contain a higher proportion of incident reports, arrest reports, and dispatch records that are independently public, which means more of the file ends up disclosed in practice. Police misconduct cases also tend to clear the four-part employee-evaluation test more often because the public has more compelling interests in serious officer misconduct.

What does the AG mean by "list of items that must be redacted from personnel records"?
The AG cited a standard list of items that must be redacted from otherwise-releasable personnel records as a categorical matter:

• Personal contact information (§ 25-19-105(b)(13)): phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses
• Employee personnel number (cf. AG opinions and § 25-19-105(b)(11))
• Marital status and information about dependents
• Dates of birth of public employees
• Social security numbers
• Medical information
• Undercover law-enforcement identifying information (§ 25-19-105(b)(10))
• Driver's license numbers
• Insurance coverage
• Tax information or withholding
• Payroll deductions
• Banking information

These are individual data points within otherwise-disclosable personnel records, not whole-document exemptions.

Background and statutory framework

Arkansas's FOIA personnel-records track has two distinct paths: § 25-19-105(b)(12) for personnel records (Young v. Rice balancing) and § 25-19-105(c)(1) for employee-evaluation records (four-part test). Documents typical of a personnel file (employment applications, transcripts, payroll-related documents, transfer records, insurance forms, performance evaluations, recommendation letters, disciplinary-action records, leave-without-pay requests, training certificates, subpoenas) get sorted into one or the other.

The AG opinion-on-personnel-record process at § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) lets the custodian, requester, or subject of records seek an opinion. The AG's role is non-binding review. The custodian retains decisional authority.

Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff is the foundational authority on police incident reports as public records. Thomas v. Hall is the foundational authority on the employee-evaluation-record definition. Young v. Rice is the foundational authority on the personnel-record balancing test.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (definition of public record)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personnel-number redaction authority)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact information redaction)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (employee evaluation records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion mechanism)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992) (two-step balancing test)
• Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998) (burden on person resisting disclosure)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387 (employee-evaluation records definition)
• Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff, 307 Ark. 457, 821 S.W.2d 761 (1991) (police incident reports as public records)
• John J. Watkins, Richard J. Peltz-Steele & Robert Steinbuch, The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (Arkansas Law Press, 6th ed. 2017)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2018-008
January 30, 2018
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GEN ERAL
LESLI E RUTLEDGE
Jennifer A. Waymack, Senior Staff Attorney
Rogers Legal Department
301 West Chestnut Street
Rogers, AR 72756
Dear Ms. Waymack:
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information
Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the custodian's attorney, is based
on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2017). This subsection
authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of personnel or employee
evaluation records to seek an opinion from this office stating whether the
custodian's decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the
FOIA.
Your correspondence indicates that someone has requested "the employment file
and other employment related documents concerning a former employee." You
state that the subject of the records has expressed the view that he has a substantial
privacy interest in the records and that there is no compelling pubic interest in
their disclosure. You have attached both redacted and unredacted copies of the
records you believe are responsive to the request, and have included a list
indicating the custodian's characterization of each record deemed responsive.
You ask whether the custodian's decisions with respect to the documents are
consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the
FOIA. Having reviewed the records, it is my opinion that most of the records
have been properly classified as either personnel records or employee evaluation
records, although some records appear from their face to have been misclassified.
323 CENTER STREET. SUITE 200 · LITTLE ROCK. A RKANSAS 7220 I
TELE PH ONE (501) 682-2007 ·FAX (501) 682-8084
ARKANSASAG.GOV Jennifer A. Waymack, Senior Staff Att'y
City of Rogers
Opinion No. 2018-008
Page 2
Furthermore, it is my opinion that decisions to disclose or withhold the records are
mostly, but not entirely, correct. Finally, the custodian has made numerous
redactions to records that are to be disclosed. It is my understanding that the
subject of the records objects to their release entirely, and not based on the
propriety or impropriety of the redactions that have been made. Therefore, my
focus in this regard will be on determining whether additional redactions are
necessary or whether records have been incorrectly classified. I will set out all the
definitions and standards and then apply them to the records you attached.
DISCUSSION
I. General standards governing disclosure.
A document must be disclosed in response to a FOIA request if all three of the
following elements are met. First, the FOIA request must be directed to an entity
subject to the act. Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.
Third, no exceptions allow the document to be withheld.
The first two elements appear met in this case. As for the first element, the
documents are held by the City of Rogers ("the City"), which is a public entity. As
for the second element, the FOIA defines "public record" as:
[W]ritings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-
based information, or data compilations in any medium, required by
law to be kept or otherwise kept, and which constitute a record of the
performance or lack of performance of official functions which are
or should be carried out by a public official or employee, a
governmental agency, or any other agency wholly or partially
supported by public funds or expending public funds. All records
maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope
of their employment shall be presumed to be public records.1
From the face of the records, they appear to have been created or collected during
the former employee's employment with the City. Accordingly, in my opinion,
the documents reflect the performance or lack of performance of an official
function of the former employee. Therefore, in my opinion, these documents are
1 Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (Supp. 2017). Jennifer A. Waymack, Senior Staff Att'y
City of Rogers
Opinion No. 2018-008
Page 3
public records and must be disclosed unless a specific exception provides
otherwise.
II. Exceptions to disclosure.
Under certain conditions, the FOIA exempts two groups of items normally found
in employees' personnel files.2 For purposes of the FOIA, these items can usually
be divided into two mutually exclusive groups: "personnel records"3 or "employee
evaluation or job performance records."4 With respect to resignation letters, this
office has consistently opined that such records generally constitute "personnel
records" within the meaning of the FOIA.5 The test for whether these two types of
documents may be released differs significantly.
When custodians assess whether either of these exceptions applies to a particular
record, they must make two determinations. First, they must determine whether
the record meets the definition of either exception. Second, assuming the record
does meet one of the definitions, the custodian must apply the appropriate test to
determine whether the FOIA requires that record be disclosed.
2 This office and the leading commentators on the FOIA have observed that personnel files
usually include: employment applications; school transcripts; payroll-related documents such as
information about reclassifications, promotions, or demotions; transfer records; health and life
insurance forms; performance evaluations; recommendation letters; disciplinary-action records;
requests for leave-without-pay; certificates of advanced training or education; and legal
documents such as subpoenas. E.g. Op. Att'y Gen. 97-368; John J. Watkins, Richard J. Peltz-
Steele & Robert Steinbuch, THE ARKANSAS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 205-06 (Arkansas
Law Press, 6th ed., 2017).
3 Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b )( 12): "It is the specific intent of this section that the following
shall not be deemed to be made open to the public under the provisions of this chapter ....
[p ]ersonnel records to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy."
4 Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(l): "Notwithstanding subdivision (b)(12) of this section, all
employee evaluation or job performance records, including preliminary notes and other materials,
shall be open to public inspection only upon final administrative resolution of any suspension or
termination proceeding at which the records form a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate
the employee and if there is a compelling public interest in their disclosure."
5 Op. Att'y Gen. 2017-079 (citing Ops. Att'y Gen. 2013-016, 2006-082, 2002-006, 2001-276, 99-
147, 99-119, 98-122, 95-162, and 88-147). Jennifer A. Waymack, Senior Staff Att'y
City of Rogers
Opinion No. 2018-008
Page 4
a. Personnel-records exception.
The first of the two most relevant potential exceptions is the one for "personnel
records," which the FOIA does not define. But this office has consistently opined
that "personnel records" are all records other than employee evaluation and job
performance records that pertain to individual employees.6 Whether a particular
record meets this definition is, of course, a question of fact that can only be
definitively determined by reviewing the record itself. If a document meets this
definition, then it is open to public inspection and copying except "to the extent
that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy."7
While the FOIA does not define the phrase "clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy," the Arkansas Supreme Court, in Young v. Rice,8 has provided
some guidance. To determine whether the release of a personnel record would
constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," the Court applies
a balancing test that weighs the public's interest in accessing the records against
the individual's interest in keeping them private. The balancing takes place with
the scale tipped in favor of disclosure. 9
The balancing test elaborated by Young v. Rice has two steps. First, the custodian
must assess whether the information contained in the requested document is of a
personal or intimate nature such that it gives rise to a greater than de minimis
privacy interest.10 If the privacy interest is merely de minimis, then the thumb on
the scale favoring disclosure outweighs the privacy interest. Second, if the
information does give rise to a greater than de minimis privacy interest, then the
custodian must determine whether that interest is outweighed by the public's
interest in disclosure. 11 Because the exceptions must be narrowly construed, the
6 See, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 2015-072, 99-147; Watkins, et al., at 202.
7 Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b )(12) (Supp. 2017).
8 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
9 Watkins, et al., at 208.
10 Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
11 Id., 826 S.W.2d at255. Jennifer A. Waymack, Senior Staff Att'y
City of Rogers
Opinion No. 2018-008
Page 5
person resisting disclosure bears the burden of showing that, under the
circumstances, his privacy interests outweigh the public's interests.12 The fact that
the subject of any such records may consider release of the records an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is
objective.13 Whether any particular personnel record's release would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is always a question of fact.14
Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it
may contain discrete pieces of information that have to be redacted. Some items
that must be redacted include:
• Personal contact information of public employees, including personal
telephone numbers, personal e-mail addresses, and home addresses (Ark.
Code Ann.§ 25-19-105(b)(l3));
• Employee personnel number (Ops. Att'y Gen. 2014-094; 2007-070);
• Marital status of employees and information about dependents (Op. Att'y
Gen. 2001-080);
• Dates of birth of public employees (Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-064);
• Social security numbers (Ops. Att'y Gen. 2006-035, 2003-153);
• Medical information (Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-153);
• Any information identifying certain law enforcement officers currently
working undercover (Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b )(1 O));
• Driver's license numbers (Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-025);
• Insurance coverage (Op. Att'y Gen. 2004-167);
• Tax information or withholding (Ops. Att'y Gen. 2005-194, 2003-385);
• Payroll deductions (Op. Att'y Gen. 98-126); and
• Banking information (Op. Att'y Gen. 2005-194).
12 Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 (1998).
13 E.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 2016-055, 2001-112, 2001-022, 94-198; Watkins, et al., at 207.
14 Ops. Att'y Gen. 2006-176, 2004-260, 2003-336, 98-001. Jennifer A. Waymack, Senior Staff Att'y
City of Rogers
Opinion No. 2018-008
Page 6
b. Employee-evaluation exception.
The second potentially relevant exception is for "employee evaluation or job
performance records," which the FOIA likewise does not define. But the
Arkansas Supreme Court has adopted this office's view that the term refers to any
records (1) created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the
employee (3) that detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on
the job.15 This exception includes records generated while investigating
allegations of employee misconduct that detail incidents that gave rise to an
allegation of misconduct.16
If a document meets the above definition, the document cannot be released unless
all the following elements have been met:

1. The employee was suspended or terminated (i.e., level of discipline);
2. There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or
   termination proceeding (i.e., finality);
3. The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that
   proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee (i.e., basis); and
4. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records
   in question (i.e., compelling interest).17
   As for the final prong, the FOIA never defines the key phrase "compelling public
   interest." But two leading commentators on the FOIA, referring to this office's
   opinions, have offered the following guidelines:
   [I]t seems that the following factors should be considered in
   determining whether a compelling public interest is present: ( 1) the
   nature of the infraction that led to suspension or termination, with
   particular concern as to whether violations of the public trust or
   gross incompetence are involved; (2) the existence of a public
   15 Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387. See also Ops. Att'y Gen. 2009-067; 2008-
   004; 2007-225; 2006-038; 2005-030; 2003-073; 98-006; 97-222; 95-351; 94-306; and 93-055.
   16 Thomas, 2012 Ark. 66, at 9-10, 399 S.W.3d at 392-93.
   17 Ark. Code Ann.§ 25-19-105(c)(l); Op. Att'y Gen. 2008-065. Jennifer A. Waymack, Senior Staff Att'y
   City of Rogers
   Opinion No. 2018-008
   Page 7
   controversy related to the agency and its employees; and (3) the
   employee's position within the agency. In short, a general interest in
   the performance of public employees should not be considered
   compelling, because that concern, at least theoretically, always
   exists. However, a link between a given public controversy, an
   agency associated with the controversy in a specific way, and an
   employee within the agency who commits a serious breach of public
   trust should be sufficient to satisfy the "compelling public interest"
   requirement. 18
   These commentators also note that "the status of the employee" or "his rank
   within the bureaucratic hierarchy" may be relevant in determining whether a
   "compelling public interest" exists, 19 which is always a question of fact that must
   be determined, in the first instance, by the custodian after he considers all the
   relevant information. The primary purpose of this exception is to preserve the
   confidentiality of the formal job-evaluation process in order to promote honest
   exchanges in the employee/employer relationship.20
   III. Application.
   You have sent the records for my review labeled as Exhibits A through T,21 with
   some of these exhibits containing multiple pages. As stated above, I will only
   address the exhibits where additional redactions must be made or where the
   records were improperly classified.
   • Exhibit A: These records appear to be screen captures from the Rogers
   Police Department's personnel management software of information
   windows regarding the former employee. In my opinion, the custodian's
   decision to classify and release these records as personnel records is
   consistent with the FOIA.
   18 Watkins, et al., at 238-39 (footnotes omitted).
   19 Id. at 237 (noting that "[a]s a practical matter, such an interest is more likely to be present when
   a high-level employee is involved than when the [records] of 'rank-and-file' workers are at
   issue.").
   2° Cf Op. Att'y Gen. 96-168; Watkins, et al., at 223.
   21 Exhibit K was not submitted for my review, so I am unable to assess the custodian's decisions
   with respect to that record. Jennifer A. Waymack, Senior Staff Att'y
   City of Rogers
   Opinion No. 2018-008
   Page 8
   I note, however, that numerous and extensive redactions were made to the
   records in Exhibit A. You stated that the subject of the records objected to
   the records' release in their entirety based on privacy grounds, and not on
   grounds that any redactions made were improper or insufficient.
   Accordingly, I have not focused my review of these documents on that
   basis. I urge the custodian to consult the oEinions of this office when
   considering redactions from personnel records. 2
   Additionally, I note that throughout the records you have provided the
   personnel number of the former employee is left unredacted. While this
   office has said that the personnel numbers of former employees should be
   redacted, 23 the custodian must weigh the decision of whether to redact the
   personnel number of a former employee so long separated from the City.24
   • Exhibits B through D: From the face of the records, these appear to be
   incident reports, and thus are public records subject to disclosure in their
   entirety. 25 The decisions to classify them as personnel records and to redact
   portions of them are inconsistent with the FOIA.
   • Exhibit G: The custodian's decisions with respect to this record are largely
   consistent with the FOIA. However, additional information (in the box at
   the bottom of the first page entitled "Additional Information") must also be
   redacted. 26
   • Exhibit S: The custodian's decisions to classify this record as an employee
   evaluation record and to withhold it from disclosure are inconsistent with
   22 For instance, please see Ops. Att'y Gen. 2007-226 regarding leave records and documents
   related to any compensation a former employee receives in addition to their regular paycheck,
   and 2002-107 regarding an employee's or former employee's salary and salary history. This
   would also apply to the records you labeled as Exhibits E and F.
   23 See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(l l) (Supp. 2017). See also Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-057.
   24 See Op. Att'y Gen. 2017-134 (stating that "to the extent the job-class number meets the
   definition of "data used to cause a computer or a computer system ... to perform security
   functions, including, but not limited to ... personal identification numbers .... ").
   25 See Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff, 307 Ark. 457, 821 S.W .2d 761 ( 1991 ).
   26 See Op. Att'y Gen. 2001-080. Jennifer A. Waymack, Senior Staff Att'y
   City of Rogers
   Opinion No. 2018-008
   Page 9
   the FOIA. With respect to resignation letters, this office has consistently
   opined that such records generally constitute "personnel records" within the
   meaning of the FOIA.27 As such, their disclosure must be evaluated under
   test for personnel records. From the face of the record, I can see nothing
   that would rise to the level of a clearly unwarranted invasion of the former
   employee's personal privacy. As such, the record should be released.
   In summary, it is my opinion that the custodian's decisions with respect to these
   records are mostly, but not entirely, consistent with the FOIA. Additional
   redactions, however, must be made as noted. Furthermore, other records must be
   reclassified and disclosed under the appropriate standard.
   Sincerely,
   ~~- 1:· /,#17
   LESLIE RUTLEDGE
   Attorney General
   27 Op. Att'y Gen. 2017-079 (and opinions cited therein).