Can a city release a police captain's name with his salary and job position over his objection that the FOIA request is overly broad and an invasion of all employees' privacy?

Plain-English summary

Captain Ronald Gallant of the Fort Smith Police Department was the third Fort Smith employee to seek an AG opinion on the same FOIA roster request. Where Bill Striplin (2021-084) objected based on harm and embarrassment, and Detective Abbott (2021-085) objected based on family safety, Captain Gallant objected on the ground that the request was "overly broad and an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy for all employees of the City."

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge's answer matched her two same-day opinions: release is consistent with FOIA. The legal analysis and result mirror Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084 (Striplin). The "overly broad" framing does not change anything: an FOIA request asking for the full roster of names, titles, and salaries is not legally overbroad in Arkansas, because each employee's name-title-salary triplet is a disclosable personnel record under § 25-19-105(b)(12) and the Young v. Rice balancing test. The public's interest in basic employment information is substantial, and any individual employee's privacy interest does not outweigh it, even taken collectively across a department.

For the full reasoning, see Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084.

What this means for you

If you are a public employee considering an objection on broadness grounds

A "this request is too broad" objection has limited bite under Arkansas FOIA when the data is per-employee personnel records. Each employee's record stands or falls on its own merits under Young v. Rice. Aggregating "the breadth of the request" into a privacy argument does not work, because the per-record analysis remains the same regardless of how many records are requested.

The narrowness paths that do sometimes work in FOIA practice are: (1) showing the request is so vague the custodian cannot identify responsive records (a request specificity problem, not a privacy issue); or (2) showing that a particular requested item falls into a recognized exemption. Neither is what Captain Gallant raised here.

If you are a records custodian fielding a multi-objection request

When several employees object to the same release, you can typically resolve them all by following the foundational analysis the AG has issued for one of them (here, Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084). The legal answer does not change with the number of objectors. You still need to:

1. Apply the standard personnel-records redactions for each released record.
2. Document each employee's objection and your response, especially if you need to defend the release in litigation.
3. If a particular employee has a unique fact (active undercover work, a documented protective order), break that out and analyze it separately.

If you are a journalist tracking salary disclosure across departments

A roster request to a city or department is not legally overbroad just because it covers many employees. The AG's answer here closes the door on a "broadness" objection. If a custodian denies citing breadth, push back with this opinion and the long-running line of name-title-salary opinions.

Common questions

Q: What's different about this opinion compared to 2021-084 and 2021-085?
A: The objection framing. Striplin objected for personal harm; Abbott for family safety; Gallant for the request being "overly broad and an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy for all employees of the City." All three got the same answer: release.

Q: Can a request really be "too broad"?
A: Not in this kind of fact pattern. A roster of all employees with names, titles, and salaries is a routine and well-defined records request. The AG and the courts treat it as fair game. "Too broad" arguments are stronger in scenarios where the custodian genuinely cannot identify responsive records, not where the responsive records are easy to compile.

Q: Does Captain Gallant's senior rank matter?
A: For the personnel-records balancing test, no. Names-titles-salaries of senior officers are at least as releasable as those of rank-and-file employees. Higher-rank employees often have a higher public-interest weight on top of basic name-title-salary disclosure (because their decisions affect more public policy).

Q: Where do I get the full reasoning?
A: Read Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084. This opinion expressly says it incorporates that opinion's analysis.

Background and statutory framework

This opinion is the third in a same-day trio of Fort Smith roster-request opinions, all reaching the same conclusion:

• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084 (Bill Striplin) - foundational analysis.
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-085 (Detective Charity Abbott).
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-086 (Captain Ronald Gallant) - this opinion.

A fourth opinion the next week, Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-087 (Richard Hamrick), addressed the same Fort Smith request from a fourth subject and reached the same answer.

Personnel records under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) are exempt only "to the extent disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Names, titles, and salaries don't meet that threshold under the Young v. Rice two-step balancing test.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exception)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (custodian-opinion procedure)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084 (parent opinion with full analysis)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-085 (companion opinion, same date)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-087 (later companion opinion, same Fort Smith request)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2021-086
October 11, 2021
Captain Ronald Gallant
c/o Rick Lolley, Director
Fort Smith Human Resources
P.O. Box 1908
Fort Smith, AR 72902
Dear Captain Gallant:
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information
Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the subject of the records, is based
on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2021). 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 Fort Smith (City) has received a
request under the FOIA for "records that show all current employees' salaries, with
their names and job position and any salary increases since 2015." The records
custodian has determined that the requested records are releasable, and has stated
that "[n]o sensitive personal information such as address, date of birth, telephone
number or social security information will be released." You object to the release
of your name in conjunction with the other requested records because you believe
the request is "overly broad and an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy for all
employees of the City." You ask whether the decision to release the requested
records is consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

Your request for my opinion regarding the custodian's decisions as to the
classification and disclosure of your employment-related records, including your
objections to those decisions, is virtually identical to the request I have responded
to in Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-084, published of even date. The legal analysis and its
application to your request consequently are the same as in that previous opinion.
Therefore, I will not repeat the opinion herein, but instead refer you to the enclosed
Opinion 2021-084 for the substantive analysis and conclusions.

Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General

Enclosure