Can the Pine Bluff School District release a teacher's transfer request and application after a blogger files a FOIA request for the personnel file?

Plain-English summary

A blogger filed a FOIA request with the Pine Bluff School District for Monica Bones's personnel file. The District's records custodian identified responsive documents (numerous attachments tied to a transfer Bones once sought between schools) and decided to release them with redactions. Bones, as the records subject, asked AG Leslie Rutledge to review the decision under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).

The AG had access to the actual records (Bones submitted them with her request) and reviewed them directly. Her conclusion was that the custodian's release decision was generally correct, with one specific addition: the custodian should also redact personal contact information for any references on the transfer application who were themselves public employees.

Why transfer records are personnel records. Personnel files in Arkansas typically include "transfer records" (the AG cited her standard list of items that fall within personnel files). A transfer-request record from an employee who once sought to move between schools fits comfortably within the personnel-records category, governed by Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12). It is not an evaluation record (which would fit Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) and the four-prong Thomas v. Hall test); the AG noted this on the face of the records and said she would limit her discussion to personnel records.

The Young v. Rice balancing test, applied. Personnel records are released except to the extent disclosure would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Young v. Rice supplies the two-step test, with the scale tipped toward disclosure. The custodian had decided to release the transfer records, and the AG read that decision as implying the records did not cross the privacy threshold. Reviewing the records herself, she could not say that conclusion was incorrect.

The standard redactions, plus a flagged additional one. The AG's general redaction list (personal phone, email, home address, employee personnel number, marital status and dependents, DOB, SSN, medical info, undercover-officer identifiers, driver's license, insurance coverage, tax info, payroll deductions, banking info) applies to any released personnel record. On these particular records, the AG flagged a specific concern: the references section of the transfer application apparently included individuals who were or could have been public employees. Personal contact information for nonelected public employees (state, county, municipal, and school) is exempt under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13). The AG alerted the custodian to redact any such reference contact information before release.

On the records subject's silence. Bones did not actually object to the release on substantive privacy grounds. She simply asked whether the records could be released. The AG's affirmative answer effectively reassured her that the custodian had chosen the right path.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. 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

Are transfer records always personnel records?
Generally, yes. Records about an employee's request to move between positions or assignments fit within the standard list of items typically found in personnel files (employment applications, school transcripts, payroll documents, transfer records, performance evaluations, etc.). The AG has consistently treated them that way.

Can the records subject's "I don't want this released" feeling block release?
No. The Young v. Rice test is objective. The records subject's view of how invasive disclosure feels is not the standard. The subject can show that specific content gives rise to a more-than-de-minimis privacy interest that outweighs the public's interest, but a generic objection is not enough.

What about references on a job or transfer application?
Personal contact information for those references must be redacted if the references are themselves public employees, under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13). The AG has applied that exemption broadly to personal phone, email, and home addresses of nonelected public employees at the state, county, municipal, and school levels.

Did the AG actually look at the records in this case?
Yes. Bones attached the records to her opinion request, which let the AG review them directly. That is unusual for FOIA-review opinions; the AG often opines without seeing the underlying records.

Why does the requester being a "blogger" not matter?
Because the test is objective and requester-identity-blind. The AG repeatedly emphasized that the custodian cannot consider the subjective motive or identity of the requester. Whether a blogger, a journalist, a citizen, or a competitor wants the records is irrelevant under FOIA.

Background and statutory framework

The standard Arkansas FOIA personnel-records framework applies. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) is the personnel-records exemption (Young v. Rice balancing). Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) is the evaluation-records exemption (four-prong Thomas v. Hall test). Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) is the personal-contact-information exemption for nonelected public employees, which extends to references on a personnel application who are themselves public employees.

The procedural hook is Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), which lets the records subject seek AG review.

Citations

Statutes:

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (Supp. 2019) (definition of public records)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(10) (undercover-officer information)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (Supp. 2019) (personal contact information of nonelected public employees)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019) (AG opinion review)

Cases:

• Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
• Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387

Prior opinions referenced:

• Ops. Att'y Gen. 2016-129, 2015-034 (personal contact information of nonelected public employees, including references)

Source

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

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

Opinion No. 2020-008
February 25, 2020

Monica Bones
Pine Bluff School District
512 South Pine Street, P.O. Box 7678
Pine Bluff, AR 71611

Dear Ms. Bones:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). You make your request, as the subject of the records at issue, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019). This subdivision authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of certain employee-related 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 Pine Bluff School District has received a request under the FOIA for a copy of your personnel file. You have attached numerous documents that the custodian of the records has identified as responsive to the request and that he intends to release with redactions. You ask whether the custodian's decision to release redacted copies of several documents related to your once seeking a transfer from one school to another is consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

Having reviewed the specific records at issue, it is my opinion, based on the definitions and standards discussed below, that the custodian's decision to disclose the records as redacted is mostly correct. However, the custodian may need to make additional redactions.

DISCUSSION

[Standard discussion of FOIA general standards, the personnel-records exception under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12), the Young v. Rice balancing test, and the standard list of items that must be redacted from any released personnel record. The records here were properly classified as personnel records, not evaluation records, so the AG limited her discussion to personnel records.]

III. Application.

In your request for my opinion, you do not put forth any objections to the records' release. Rather, you simply ask if the records relating to your request for a transfer between schools can be released. Having reviewed the specific records, it is my opinion that the custodian's decision to release the records as redacted is generally correct.

As I noted above, and which this office has consistently maintained over the years, one common type of record that can be found in personnel files include transfer records. Transfer records certainly include requests for a transfer. Taking as a given that such records pertain to the public employee seeking the transfer, they undoubtedly would be properly classified as personnel records. Accordingly, they are subject to disclosure under the applicable balancing test. Thus I am of the opinion that the custodian's decision to release them is generally consistent with the FOIA.

I must note, however, that there may be additional information on the records at issue that would not be subject to disclosure. I refer to the references section of the application you submitted for the transfer. From the face of the record, it appears that some of your references are or could have been public employees. If that is in fact the case, I believe it is incumbent upon me to alert the custodian to redact any personal contact information for those references if such information is included.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General