Can a state agency release a roster of Executive Branch employees with names and salaries, but not their personnel ID numbers?
Plain-English summary
This opinion is one of a recurring series of OPM-data-release opinions (alongside Op. 2022-039, Op. 2023-001, Op. 2022-033). Each addresses a specific FOIA request for bulk Executive Branch employee data. The structural answer is consistent: basic employment information is releasable, personnel ID numbers are not.
The November 2022 request sought monthly electronic listings of all Arkansas Executive Branch employees from January 1, 2019 onward, with full legal name, unique employee identification code, title, department or agency, race, sex, full-time/part-time status, location, hire date, termination date, civil service status, and gross annual salary. OPM intended to release everything except the employee identification codes (and noted no responsive records on civil service status existed). Some employees objected.
The AG followed the established framework:
- Basic public-employee information is a personnel record under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
- Young v. Rice (308 Ark. 593) two-step balancing test applies.
- Step 1: privacy interest in basic data is de minimis. Step 2: not reached because step 1 fails.
- Personnel/employee identification numbers are exempt under § 25-19-105(b)(11) as personal identification numbers used for computer security functions.
The opinion is essentially a confirmation of established practice. The AG declined to opine on the civil-service-status withholding because OPM had no responsive records (no FOIA analysis needed). The opinion notes generally that requester motive is irrelevant and that there is no harassment exemption.
The doctrinal framework is identical to Op. 2022-039 issued just three months later, which involved a similar bulk request from a different requester for an overlapping date range. Together with Op. 2023-001, these opinions confirm the standard list of releasable and exempt fields for Executive Branch employee data.
What this means for you
State agency FOIA custodians
Use this and the parallel opinions as your reliable framework. Release: name, title, department, agency, race, gender/sex, full-time/part-time status, location, hire date, termination date, gross annual salary. Redact: personnel/employee ID number, dates of birth, social security numbers, personal contact information, marital status, dependents, medical information, undercover-officer identifiers, driver's license info, insurance, tax/withholding, payroll deductions, banking info.
Public records requesters
The standard fields are routinely producible. Bulk Executive Branch data requests are well-supported by AG practice. Be prepared to forgo personnel ID numbers; they are exempt as access keys to computerized state systems.
State employees objecting to release
Objections based on personal preference, fear of harassment, or distaste for the requester are not legally cognizable under Arkansas FOIA. Substantive content-based objections (DOB redaction, personal contact info, etc.) follow the established redaction list.
Common questions
Why are personnel ID numbers exempt?
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) exempts personal identification numbers. Employee ID numbers function as access keys to computerized state records, which qualifies them under the exemption. Op. Att'y Gen. 2014-094, 2007-070, 2018-064 all reach this conclusion.
What is the difference between this opinion and Op. 2022-039 or Op. 2023-001?
Each opinion addresses a specific FOIA request from a different requester for slightly different data ranges. The doctrinal framework is identical. Together they establish the routine releasable/redactable distinction for Executive Branch employee data.
Can the agency charge for the export?
The FOIA permits charging actual costs of copying. The agency does not have to create a record that does not already exist (§ 25-19-105(d)(2)(C)).
What about Arkansas State Police officer names?
Withheld under § 25-19-105(b)(10) for currently undercover officers, with Racop expanding the analysis. This is outside the AG-opinion procedure under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), so consult the agency and Racop.
Are dates of birth releasable?
No. DOBs are redactable under Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-064 because of identity-theft and fraud risks.
Does the requester have to disclose their purpose?
No. Arkansas FOIA is requester-blind under the consistent line of opinions cited.
Background and statutory framework
Statutory framework:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A): public record definition.
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11): personal identification numbers exempt.
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12): personnel records exception.
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1): employee evaluation records.
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i): AG opinion request procedure.
Cases:
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992): personnel records balancing.
- Pulaski Cty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007): rebuttable presumption.
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998): objective test.
Companion AG opinions: Op. 2022-039, Op. 2023-001, Op. 2022-033.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11), (b)(12), (c)(1), (c)(3)(B)(i)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
- Pulaski Cty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2022-032
August 10, 2022
Lauren Ballard, Esq.
Dept. of Transformation & Shared Services
501 Woodlane Street, Suite 201
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Ms. Ballard:
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the attorney for the custodian 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 relates that the state Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has received a request under the FOIA for an electronic listing of all employees of the Arkansas Executive Branch from January 1, 2019, to the present, and monthly thereafter, with the following fields for each employee: "full legal name, unique employee identification code, title, department or agency, race, [sex], full-time/part-time status, location, hire date, termination date, civil service status, and gross annual salary." It is my understanding that OPM intends to release a record with the requested information except the employee identification codes. You write that an unspecified number of employees have objected to the release of their information. You ask whether the decision to release a record with the requested information, save for the employee identification codes (that is, personnel numbers), is consistent with the FOIA.
[Footnote: You also relate that OPM has no responsive records with respect to "civil service status," so that part of the request will also be denied. That decision is beyond the scope of an opinion from this office under the FOIA and therefore will not be addressed herein.]
RESPONSE
The custodian's decision to release records with the requested information, except for the employees' personnel numbers, is consistent with the FOIA, in my opinion.
DISCUSSION
The discussion follows the framework established in companion opinions. Basic public-employee information (name, title, department or agency, race, sex, full-time or part-time status, work location, hire date, termination date, gross annual salary) is properly classified as personnel records under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). The Young v. Rice balancing test for personnel records, with the scale tipped in favor of disclosure, treats the privacy interest in basic employment information as de minimis. Therefore, the public interest in disclosure prevails at step one, and the records must be released.
The withholding of personnel/employee identification codes is consistent with the FOIA because A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) exempts personal identification numbers, which prior AG opinions consistently apply to employee numbers because they presumably enable computer access.
Subject objections based on requester motive or harassment concerns are not legally cognizable. The test is objective, and there is no general harassment exemption under Arkansas FOIA.
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General