Can the City of Wynne release its employees' salary, hire date, position title, and name under Arkansas FOIA when the named employees object?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2021. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Arkansas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Three employees of the City of Wynne (Lucas Hunt, Dean Nelson, and Mark Pierce) 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.
The pattern in this opinion mirrors several others issued the same week. Public employee compensation data is part of the personnel record. The Young v. Rice balancing test favors disclosure when records shed light on how government spends public funds, and salary records do exactly that. The custodian's plan, classify as personnel records, redact sensitive personal information (address, DOB, phone, SSN), and release the rest, is the standard route for FOIA-compliant disclosure.
What this means for you
Public employees in Arkansas
Your salary, hire date, position title, and name are public records. You cannot block their release by objecting. What you can have redacted: home address, date of birth, personal phone, social security number, medical information, banking and tax details, and other sensitive personal information.
FOIA custodians
This opinion confirms the standard procedure: personnel-record classification, balancing test, standard redactions, release. A subject's objection does not change the analysis when the records are clearly disclosable public records.
Citizens, journalists, watchdogs
Salary records of public employees in Arkansas cities are public information. This opinion is a clean citation if you encounter resistance.
Common questions
Can I keep my name out of the release?
No. Names of public employees are part of the disclosable personnel record. The opinion treats name release as routine.
What about my home address?
That is one of the standard required redactions under § 25-19-105(b)(13). The custodian must redact it before release.
Does my motive matter as the requester?
No. The opinion repeats that "neither the Arkansas Legislature nor our appellate courts have allowed custodians to consider the subjective motive of the requester."
Background and statutory framework
Personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12) are exempt only when release would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992), supplies the balancing test: greater than de minimis privacy interest weighed against public interest, with the scale tipped toward disclosure.
The opinion cites Op. 2009-204 and Op. 2008-129 for the consistent treatment of compensation data as releasable personnel records.
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)
- Pulaski Cty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435 (2007)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992)
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306 (1998)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2021-040
June 9, 2021
Lucas Hunt
Dean Nelson
Mark D. Pierce
c/o Kevin A. Watts, City Clerk
City of Wynne
1878 Highway 64 Spur
Wynne, AR 72396
Dear Messrs. Hunt, Nelson, and Pierce:
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). 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 City of Wynne 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 he 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 ask for an opinion as to 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. I have no information to suggest that the custodian's decision to classify them as personnel records is incorrect. Indeed, I can state generally that 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." The Arkansas Supreme Court in Young v. Rice provided the balancing test: weigh the public's interest in accessing the records against the individual's privacy interest, 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. The test under the FOIA for the release of personnel records asks whether, as an objective matter, the records in question shed light on the workings of government for the general public. The custodian's analysis cannot be based on a requester's identity or subjective motive for wanting the record.
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2021 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.