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

Plain-English summary

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

The AG agreed. The same legal framework that applies to similar requests applies here: salary, hire date, position title, and name records are personnel records under Arkansas FOIA and are releasable subject to the standard required redactions. The custodian's plan to release with sensitive personal information redacted (home address, date of birth, phone, social security) was correct.

What this means for you

Public employees in Rogers

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

FOIA custodians

The standard procedure: classify as personnel records, apply Young v. Rice balancing, redact the sensitive personal information list, release the rest.

Citizens and journalists

Compensation data for public employees in Arkansas cities is public. This opinion is direct authority for that conclusion.

Common questions

Why does the AG keep saying the same thing?

Because the legal framework is uniform across Arkansas FOIA cases involving public employee compensation data. Each opinion is a separate request from a separate subject, but the analysis and result are the same.

What about my privacy?

You have a recognized privacy interest in your home address, date of birth, social security number, medical information, and banking details. Those are redacted. Your salary, name, hire date, and position are not.

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), provides the balancing test. The AG has long held compensation data is releasable.

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. 2021-047
June 21, 2021
Kahla Gudger
c/o John M. Pesek, Staff Attorney
City of Rogers
301 W. Chestnut Street
Rogers, AR 72756

Dear Ms. Gudger:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the 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 Rogers 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 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 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.

The custodian has noted that employee evaluation records are not releasable unless they form the basis of a suspension or termination and only if they have reached their final administrative resolution. As long as the other two prongs of the test set out in section 25-19-105(c)(1) are met, that decision is also 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