Can the City of Crossett release employee salary, hire date, position title, and name records under Arkansas FOIA?

Plain-English summary

Ten Crossett city employees jointly objected to release of their salary, hire date, position title, and name records in response to a FOIA request. The custodian classified the records as personnel records and decided to release them with sensitive personal information redacted. The AG agreed that release was consistent with FOIA.

This is one of a sequence of identical opinions issued in May and June 2021 to small Arkansas cities receiving the same form of FOIA request. The legal framework is uniform: salary, hire date, position title, and name records are personnel records, releasable under the Young v. Rice balancing test, with required redactions for sensitive personal information.

What this means for you

Public employees in Crossett or any Arkansas city

Your name, salary, hire date, and position title are public records under Arkansas FOIA. You cannot block release by objecting individually or jointly with coworkers. Sensitive personal information (home address, DOB, phone, SSN, banking, medical) is redacted before release.

FOIA custodians

Standard procedure: classify as personnel records, apply Young v. Rice balancing, redact the sensitive personal information list, release the rest. Multiple employees objecting does not change the analysis.

Citizens and journalists

Compensation data for public employees in Arkansas cities is public. Use this opinion as authority for that conclusion.

Common questions

What if all employees object?

The result is still release. The Young v. Rice test favors disclosure of compensation data. Multiple employees objecting doesn't change the public's interest in seeing how the city spends public money.

What gets redacted?

Standard list: home address, personal phone, personal email, employee personnel number, marital status, dates of birth, social security numbers, medical information, undercover officer identifying information, driver's license, insurance coverage, tax withholding, payroll deductions, banking information.

Background and statutory framework

Personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12) are released subject to the Young v. Rice balancing test. The AG has long treated salary, hire date, title, and name as releasable personnel records (Op. 2009-204, Op. 2008-129).

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (required redactions)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion procedure)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2021-037
June 3, 2021
Andrew Brigham
Kesha Campbell
Anthony Cockrell
Stephen Gage Henderson
Phillip B. Hicks
Chester G. Kelley
Gerald Kelley
Matthew Pepper
Lester Tucker, Jr.
Steven Wilkerson
c/o The Honorable Crystal Marshall
Office of the Mayor
201 Main Street
Crossett, AR 71635

Dear Ms. Campbell and Messrs. Brigham, Cockrell, Henderson, Hicks, Kelley, Kelley, Pepper, Tucker, and Wilkerson:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your requests, which are made as the subjects of the requested records, are based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019).

Your correspondence indicates that the City of Crossett has received a request under the FOIA for "records regarding the salary/compensation, hire date, position titles and names of any and all employees for the year 2020." You have attached a memorandum from the custodian of the records in which she has determined that the requested records are personnel records that are releasable pursuant to the FOIA, but that "sensitive personal information, such as address, date of birth, telephone number, or social security information," is not releasable. As the subjects of the requested records, you all object to the release of these records and ask whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of the records is consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

Because I have not seen any records that would be responsive to your FOIA request, I cannot opine about the releasability of any specific document or the need to redact any specific piece of information from an otherwise releasable document. I can state generally, however, that the bulk of the information requested (salary/compensation, hire date, position titles, and employee names) is subject to inspection and copying under the FOIA. Additionally, the custodian has correctly decided that sensitive personal information is not releasable.

DISCUSSION

The custodian has classified the requested records as personnel records. Records of employees' salaries, hire dates, position titles, and names likely constitute personnel records.

Personnel records under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) are open to public inspection and copying except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Young v. Rice provides the balancing test, with the scale tipped in favor of disclosure. The custodian's decision to release the records with sensitive personal information redacted is consistent with the FOIA.

A FOIA requester's identity or motive for making the request is generally irrelevant to whether a record must be released.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General