Can the City of Decatur release a public employee's salary, hire date, position title, and name under Arkansas FOIA?

Plain-English summary

The City of Decatur received a FOIA request for the salary, hire date, position titles, and names of all employees for 2020. The custodian decided the records were personnel records subject to release with sensitive personal information redacted. Bob Tharp, as a subject of the records, asked the AG whether release was consistent with FOIA.

The AG agreed. Salary, hire date, position title, and name are personnel records under Arkansas FOIA. Public payroll information sheds light on how cities spend public money, so the Young v. Rice balancing test favors disclosure. The custodian was correct to plan redaction of sensitive personal information (home address, date of birth, telephone number, social security number) before release.

What this means for you

Public employees

Your basic compensation information (salary, position, hire date, name) is public. You cannot block its release under Arkansas FOIA. What you can keep private: home address, date of birth, personal phone, social security number, medical information, banking and tax details, payroll deductions.

FOIA custodians

The standard procedure works: classify as personnel records, apply Young v. Rice balancing, redact the sensitive personal information list, release the rest. An employee's objection does not change the result for this kind of record.

Citizens and journalists

Public employee salaries are public information in Arkansas, including in small cities like Decatur. This opinion is direct authority for that conclusion.

Common questions

Why is this not "private" information?

Public employees are paid from taxpayer funds. Arkansas FOIA establishes a strong public interest in knowing how that money is spent. The Young v. Rice balancing test routinely comes out in favor of disclosure for compensation data.

What protects me?

The required-redactions list. Home address, DOB, personal phone, SSN, medical info, banking info, and similar sensitive personal information must be redacted under § 25-19-105(b)(13) and the AG's standard list.

Background and statutory framework

Personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12) are open to inspection except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992), supplies the two-step balancing test. The AG has consistently treated compensation data as releasable, citing Op. 2009-204 and 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)
• 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

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2021-041
June 10, 2021
Bob Tharp
c/o Kim Wilkins, City Clerk
City of Decatur
P.O. Box 247
Decatur, AR 72722

Dear Mr. Tharp:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as a subject of the requested records, is 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 Decatur has received a request under the FOIA for "information that is in [your] employee personnel record." Specifically, the request asks for "records regarding the salary/compensation, hire date, position titles and names of any and all employees for the year 2020." The custodian of the records 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 a subject of the requested records, you 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 the 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 for personnel records, 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.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General