Can a Little Rock city employee block release of her ID photo and personnel file under Arkansas FOIA by objecting to the requester?

Plain-English summary

In October 2018, the same FOIA requester who sought administrative technician Kyra McTyer's personnel file and city ID photo (see Opinion 2018-125) also sought office assistant LaTesia Quandt's personnel file and city ID photo from the City of Little Rock's Department of Housing & Neighborhood Programs. Quandt, the subject of the records, objected on the same grounds as McTyer: she questioned why the requester wanted the information and was concerned about it going to that particular requester.

The AG took the same position. Records depicting public employees are generally subject to disclosure under the personnel-records test in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12). The objection was not "a legally sufficient reason to withhold the records" because the FOIA test is objective. The requester's identity and motive are not part of the analysis. Rather than restate the full reasoning, the AG enclosed Opinion 2018-125, which lays out the complete legal framework: the Young v. Rice two-step balancing test, the standard list of redactable items (personal contact info, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, employee numbers, medical info, banking info, and similar), and the principle that a subject employee's objection does not control.

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.

Background and statutory framework

Arkansas's FOIA presumes public records are open. The personnel-records exception in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) protects records "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Arkansas Supreme Court's two-step balancing test from Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992), governs that determination, and the test is objective: the subject employee's preferences do not drive the result. Records depicting public employees, including ID photographs, are generally disclosable.

Section 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) lets the custodian, the requester, or the subject of personnel or employee-evaluation records seek an AG opinion. Quandt invoked that channel here.

This opinion is one of three short follow-ups (along with 2018-127 and 2018-128) issued in response to the same multi-employee FOIA request. The full substantive analysis lives in 2018-125; the follow-ups simply apply that analysis to additional employees who raised the same objection.

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.

Common questions

Why does the AG just point to 2018-125 instead of writing a full opinion?
Because 2018-126, 2018-127, and 2018-128 share an identical FOIA request and identical objections from different employees. The AG wrote out the full analysis once in 2018-125 and incorporated it by reference for the others.

Does my objection count for anything?
It triggers the AG-opinion review channel, but the AG's review applies an objective standard. Your objection does not control the outcome.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exception)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (right to seek AG opinion)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2018-125 (the lead opinion in this cluster, with the full substantive analysis)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2018-126
October 10, 2018
LaTesia Quandt, Office Assistant
Department of Housing & Neighborhood Programs
500 West Markham, Suite 120W
Little Rock, AR 72201

Dear Ms. Quandt:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request 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 the City of Little Rock has received a request under the FOIA for your personnel file, including your city identification photograph. The custodian has determined that the requested records are personnel records that are releasable pursuant to the FOIA. The custodian has also determined that "[n]o information like address, date of birth, telephone number or social security information is releasable." You object to the release of your file and photograph to the person who has submitted the FOIA request. You question his need for the information, and you express concern about the information being released to this specific requester.

RESPONSE

My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. I addressed the custodian's decision regarding the same FOIA request in Opinion No. 2018-125, which is enclosed for your review. This opinion addresses essentially the same objections you have raised. I concluded that the basis for objecting does not appear to be a legally-sufficient reason to withhold the records.

I will not restate the entire analysis, which applies equally to your request for my opinion. But in sum, records depicting public employees are generally subject to disclosure under the test for personnel records. Accordingly, the custodian's decision to release your photograph is likely consistent with the FOIA. And the requester's identity or motive for making the request is generally irrelevant to whether a record must be released. That is because the test for the release of personnel records is entirely objective, meaning that the custodian does not consider the subjective motives or identity of the requester.

Sincerely,
Leslie Rutledge
Attorney General

Enclosure: Opinion No. 2018-125