Can Department of the Military employees block release of their basic personnel data when included in a statewide Executive Branch employee export?
Plain-English summary
The Arkansas Department of Transformation and Shared Services (DTSS) received an FOIA request for monthly electronic listings of all Arkansas Executive Branch employees from January 1, 2019, to present, with full legal name, title, department or agency, race, sex, full-time/part-time status, location, hire date, termination date, and gross annual salary. The Arkansas Department of the Military (ADOM) is an Executive Branch agency, so its employees were included.
Two ADOM employees, William Lewis and William Gause, objected as subjects of the records. They asked the AG to review under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
The AG's answer: yes, release is consistent with the FOIA. The framework is the standard personnel-records framework that applies to all Executive Branch employee data:
- Basic employment information (the listed fields) qualifies as personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12).
- The Young v. Rice (308 Ark. 593) balancing test applies. The privacy interest in basic data is de minimis. Disclosure is required.
- Subject objections based on personal preference are not legally cognizable. The test is objective under Stilley v. McBride.
ADOM is not given any special exemption due to its military mission. State employees of ADOM are subject to the same FOIA framework as employees of any other Executive Branch agency. Specific narrow exemptions exist (e.g., undercover law enforcement officer names under § 25-19-105(b)(10), classified or operational security matters under federal law), but they do not blanket-exempt the agency's basic personnel data.
This opinion is a companion to Op. 2022-032 (the OPM bulk request from the same period) and Op. 2022-039 (a similar later request). All three apply identical doctrine to the same general data-release pattern.
What this means for you
Department of the Military employees
Your basic personnel data (name, title, salary, etc.) is public when held by your employer. Statutory exemptions for specific narrow categories (undercover law enforcement, classified information) may apply to subset data, but not to basic employment information.
If you have specific exemption-eligible status (e.g., currently undercover, domestic-violence-protected address), work with your agency on the specific exemption procedure.
State agency FOIA custodians at military or law-enforcement-adjacent agencies
The agency mission does not change the FOIA framework. Apply the standard personnel-records analysis. Release the standard fields, redact the standard exempt items.
If you have employees with specific protective statuses, you may need additional layers of analysis (e.g., undercover officer redactions per Racop). For the bulk of employees, the routine framework applies.
Public records requesters
Bulk Executive Branch data requests cover ADOM and other military-affiliated agencies. Plan requests with the standard framework in mind.
Common questions
Does ADOM have special FOIA exemptions because of its military mission?
Not for basic personnel data. Specific narrow exemptions may apply to operational matters, but the personnel-records framework treats ADOM employees the same as other Executive Branch employees.
What if an ADOM employee is in a sensitive role?
Specific narrow exemptions (e.g., undercover law enforcement under § 25-19-105(b)(10), classified information under federal law) may protect the identity or specific data of certain employees. The agency must apply those exemptions specifically.
Can ADOM employees opt out of the data release?
No. The FOIA is requester-blind and subject-blind for basic personnel data. The objective Young v. Rice test does not consider subject preferences.
What rights do subjects have under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)?
Subjects can request an AG opinion on whether the custodian's release decision is consistent with the FOIA. The opinion is persuasive but not binding. Other paths include FOIA litigation in court.
Is my agency-specific data different from OPM's central data?
Probably not for the basic fields. The custodian (OPM through DTSS, in this case) maintains a centralized listing that pulls from agency systems. Discrepancies are rare for the basic fields.
Background and statutory framework
Statutory framework (same as companion opinions):
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A): public record.
- 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.
Cases:
- 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).
Companion AG opinions: 2022-032, 2022-039, 2023-001.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(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. 2022-033
August 11, 2022
William L. Lewis
William Gause
Arkansas Department of the Military
c/o Melissa M. Butler, FOIA Officer
Camp Joseph T. Robinson
Building 4201, Box 28
North Little Rock, AR 72199-9600
Dear Messrs. Lewis and Gause:
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. 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 Arkansas Department of Transformation and Shared Services (DTSS) has received a request under the FOIA for "monthly electronic listings of all employees of the Arkansas Executive Branch from January 1, 2019, to the present with the following fields for each employee: full legal name, title, department or agency, race, [sex], full-time/part-time status, location, hire date, termination date, and gross annual salary." Because the Arkansas Department of the Military (ADOM) is an agency of the Executive Branch, its employees are necessarily included in this request. It is my understanding that ADOM intends to release the requested records. As the subjects 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
In my opinion, the custodian's decision to release the requested information is consistent with the FOIA.
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). Under the Young v. Rice balancing test, the privacy interest in basic employment information is de minimis, and the public interest in disclosure prevails at step one of the test.
Subject objections based on personal preference, fear of harassment, or distaste for the requester are not legally cognizable. The test is objective under Stilley v. McBride. The General Assembly has not seen fit to create a generalized harassment exemption.
Therefore, the custodian's decision to release the records is consistent with the FOIA.
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General