Can a former employee block release of her personnel file because the records are old, or because they contain her signature?
Plain-English summary
Doris Anderson retired from the Arkansas Department of Labor and Licensing in 2015. The Department later received an FOIA request for her personnel file. The Department planned to release records with redactions; Anderson objected on two grounds: (1) some records were older than the Arkansas General Records Retention Schedule required them to be kept, so she thought the agency should have destroyed them, and (2) her signature appeared in some records and she did not believe signatures should be released. Anderson sought an AG opinion under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
The AG could not opine on the specific records because the AG had not seen them. But the AG addressed Anderson's two specific objections.
Objection 1: Records older than the Retention Schedule. The Arkansas General Records Retention Schedule, promulgated by the Department of Finance and Administration under A.C.A. § 25-18-604, sets MINIMUM retention periods. The Schedule's introduction explicitly states:
- "Retention periods...are minimum...not intended to prevent individual agencies from establishing longer retention periods."
- "An agency may determine any of its records may be of permanent value to agency operations, may have external requirements for perpetual retention, or may be useful for the study of history. Such records should be kept permanently."
- Retention periods apply only to official versions; "Duplicates of the official version have no retention requirements under this schedule, even if the duplicates are found in different media."
The agency keeping records past the minimum period is not a FOIA violation and does not strip the records of public-record status. As long as a record is kept and meets the public-record definition, it is subject to FOIA disclosure absent an applicable exemption.
Objection 2: Signature redaction. The AG cited Op. 2015-011 and Op. 2016-118 (note 17) for the consistent rule that the Young v. Rice balancing test for personnel records does not require redaction of public employees' signatures. The privacy interest in a signature, if any, is not strong enough to overcome the public interest in personnel-record disclosure. The AG specifically addressed Anderson's identity-theft and fraud concern (which Op. 2016-118 had also considered) and said it does not change the analysis.
The AG also laid out the standard FOIA personnel-records framework:
- Personnel records vs. employee-evaluation records distinction.
- Young v. Rice two-step balancing test for personnel records.
- Four-part test for employee-evaluation records (suspension/termination, finality, basis-of-discipline, compelling public interest).
- Mixed records analysis.
- Standard list of redactable items (DOB, SSN, personal contact, marital status, etc.).
- Requester motive irrelevance.
- No general harassment exemption.
The custodian's responsibility is to classify each record and apply the appropriate test in the first instance.
What this means for you
Retired or former state employees
Two specific objections that will not work:
-
"These records are too old; the agency should have destroyed them." The Retention Schedule sets minimums, not maximums. Agencies routinely keep records longer for audit, historical, or operational reasons. Retention obligations and disclosure obligations are separate.
-
"My signature should be redacted to prevent identity theft." Arkansas FOIA does not treat employee signatures as exempt. The privacy interest is too low to overcome the disclosure presumption. If you have specific identity-theft concerns, they are real but not a basis to block release.
If you have substantive objections to release, focus on the records' content and classification, not on age or signature. Look for:
- Records that should be classified as employee-evaluation records (with the four-part test as a hurdle to release).
- Records with personal information that fall within the listed redaction categories.
- Mixed-record segments referring to other people whose privacy interests should be considered.
FOIA custodians processing requests for older personnel files
Two takeaways:
-
The fact that records exceed the Retention Schedule's minimum period is not a basis to deny. As long as the records still exist and are otherwise public records, process them per the standard framework.
-
Do not redact signatures based on subject objection alone. Apply the standard Young v. Rice balancing. Signature redaction is generally not warranted.
If the request is for very old records, the records may need physical retrieval from archives. Plan response timelines accordingly.
Records retention administrators
Educate agencies on the distinction between minimum retention and FOIA disclosure. Some agencies misunderstand the Schedule as imposing a maximum, leading to either improper destruction or improper denial of FOIA requests for records past the minimum.
The Schedule's flexibility (longer periods allowed; permanent retention authorized for valuable records) is a feature, not a bug. Documenting why records are kept beyond the minimum supports the agency's position if questioned.
Public employee unions and labor counsel
Counsel members on what objections work and what objections do not under Arkansas FOIA. Age-based and signature-based objections are non-starters. Substantive content-based objections (privacy, mixed-record balancing, employee-evaluation classification) are the proper grounds for resisting release.
For members concerned about identity theft, the structural protections come from criminal law (anti-fraud statutes) and credit monitoring, not from FOIA exemptions.
State agency HR departments
Build a standard objection-response template. When an employee or former employee objects to release, walk through:
1. Is the objection based on a recognized FOIA exemption? (Yes/No)
2. If yes, does the record fall within the exemption?
3. If no, document the objection and proceed with the framework.
Common non-recognized objections: age of records, signature presence, requester identity, fear of harassment.
News reporters covering older agency records
Older personnel files are often more interesting (showing patterns over time) but require physical retrieval from archives. Plan request timelines accordingly. The records that survived the minimum retention period are still public records.
Identity-theft prevention advocates
The Arkansas FOIA's signature-non-redaction rule is settled. If you want a different rule, the path is statutory amendment, not litigation. State legislators could amend § 25-19-105(b) to add signatures to the redaction list, with potential carve-outs for executive officers whose signatures appear on official documents (where redaction would defeat transparency).
Common questions
What is the Arkansas General Records Retention Schedule?
A schedule promulgated by the Department of Finance and Administration under A.C.A. § 25-18-604 in 2006, setting minimum retention periods for various categories of state records. Found at https://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/intergovernmentalServicesOffice/rec_retention_schedule.pdf.
Are minimum retention periods the same as maximum retention periods?
No. The Schedule explicitly says "longer retention periods" are permitted and that agencies may determine records to have "permanent value" and retain them indefinitely.
Are duplicate copies subject to retention rules?
No. The Schedule applies only to official versions. Duplicates have no retention requirement under the Schedule.
Does FOIA disclosure depend on whether records are past the minimum retention?
No. FOIA disclosure depends on whether the record exists, qualifies as a public record, and is not within an exemption. Age does not change those determinations.
What if my old records contain personal information that's no longer relevant?
The Young v. Rice analysis still controls. Personal information from old records gets redacted under the same rules as personal information from new records. Age does not strengthen or weaken the privacy interest in any specific information category.
Why don't signatures get redacted?
The privacy interest in a public employee's signature, when it appears on official records, is too low to overcome the public-disclosure presumption. The signature is incidental to the document's official content. (Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-011, 2016-118 n.17.)
What if my signature has been used in identity theft?
That is a serious concern, but Arkansas FOIA does not provide signature redaction as the remedy. Criminal-law and credit-monitoring tools address identity theft. If you have a court order from an identity-theft case requiring specific protections, the order may be honored, but the FOIA framework alone does not provide signature redaction.
Are there any signatures that DO get redacted?
Specific contexts may require redaction (e.g., undercover law enforcement officers' signatures on documents revealing identity). Those are case-by-case and grounded in specific statutory exemptions, not in a general signature-redaction rule.
Background and statutory framework
Statutory framework:
- A.C.A. § 25-18-604: Department of Finance and Administration's authority to promulgate the records retention schedule.
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A): public record definition.
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(10): undercover officer exemption.
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12): personnel records exception.
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13): personal contact information exempt.
- 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.
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387: employee-evaluation record definition adopted by Arkansas Supreme Court.
Records Retention Schedule:
- Promulgated by DFA under A.C.A. § 25-18-604 in 2006.
- Found at https://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/intergovernmentalServicesOffice/rec_retention_schedule.pdf.
Prior AG opinions on signature redaction:
- Op. Att'y Gen. 2015-011: signatures generally not redactable.
- Op. Att'y Gen. 2016-118 (n.17): identity-theft concern does not change the analysis.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-18-604 (DFA records retention authority)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), (13), (c)(1), (c)(3)(B)(i)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2015-011, 2016-118 (signatures)
- Arkansas General Records Retention Schedule (DFA, 2006)
Source
Original opinion text
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Opinion No. 2022-040
November 29, 2022
Ms. Doris Anderson
c/o Daniel Parker, Esq.
Arkansas Dept. of Labor & Licensing
900 West Capitol Ave., Suite 400
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Ms. Anderson:
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information
Act (“FOIA”). Your request, which is made as the subject of requested records, is
based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)Gi) (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 your former employer, now known as the
Department of Labor and Licensing (the Department), has received a request
under the FOIA for your personnel file. The Department has informed you that it
has records it believes are responsive to the request and that it intends to release
with certain redactions. You object to the Department releasing your records on
the grounds that you retired from the agency in 2015 and that some of your
personnel records are older than the Arkansas General Records Retention
Schedule! requires such records be kept. You furthermore object on the grounds
that some of the records contain your signature, which you do not believe should
be subject to disclosure. You ask whether the custodian’s decision to release the
records as redacted is consistent with the FOIA.
' Found at hitps://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/intergovernmentalServicesOffice/rec_
retention_schedule.pdf. The Department of Finance and Administration promulgated the state
Records Retention Schedule in 2006 pursuant to the authority granted it in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-
18-604 (Supp. 2021).
323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 © LIL TLL ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 + FAX (501) 682-8084
ARKANSASAG.GOV
Ms. Doris Anderson
Opinion No. 2022-040
Page 2
RESPONSE
Because | 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 disclosable document.
Accordingly, I can only set out the legal standards the custodian must apply to
determine whether certain employee-related records must be disclosed. As
explained below, these records can include both “personnel” and “employee
evaluation or job performance” records. It is the responsibility of the custodian, in
the first instance, to properly classify the responsive records and apply the
applicable test for disclosure.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, your specific objection about the age of
the records at issue is not a legally cognizable exemption to prevent the records’
disclosure under the FOIA in my opinion. Moreover, it has been the general
stance of this office that there is no clear basis under the test regarding personnel
records to require the redaction of images of a public employee’s signature from a
disclosable record. Under the limited facts before me, I can see no reason to
deviate from that general rule in this instance.
DISCUSSION
I. General standards governing disclosure.
A document must be disclosed in response to a FOIA request if all three of the
following elements are met. First, the FOIA request must be directed to an entity
subject to the act. Second, the requested document must constitute a public
record. Third, no exceptions allow the document to be withheld.
The first two elements appear to be met. The request was made to the state
Department of Labor and Licensing, which is a public entity and is subject to the
FOIA. Moreover, as it has been relayed to me, the request pertains to public
records.” Because the records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be
2 The FOIA defines public records as “writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or
computer-based information, or data compilations in any medium, required by law to be kept or
otherwise kept, and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official
functions ... carried out by a public official or employee ....”. Ark. Code Ann, § 25-19-103(7)(A)
(Supp. 2021).
Ms. Doris Anderson
Opinion No, 2022-040
Page 3
public records,’ although that presumption is rebuttable.’ Accordingly, given that
I have no information to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted, the analysis
procecds to the third element, that is, whether any exceptions preclude disclosure.
I]. Exceptions to disclosure.
Under certain conditions, the FOIA exempts two groups of items normally found
in employees’ personnel files.> For purposes of the FOIA, these items can usually
be divided into two mutually exclusive groups: “personnel records”® or “employee
evaluation or job performance records.’ The test for whether these two types of
documents may be released differs significantly.
When custodians assess whether either of these exceptions applies to a particular
record, they must make two determinations. First, they must determine whether
the record meets the definition of either exception. Second, assuming the record
does meet one of the definitions, the custodian must apply the appropriate test to
determine whether the FOIA requires that record be disclosed.
3 Id.
4 See Pulaski Cty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 440-41, 260 S.W.3d 718, 722
(2007) (“the presumption of public record status established by the FOIA can be rebutted if the
records do not otherwise fall within the definition found in the first sentence, Le., if they do not
‘constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions,” citing Op.
Att’y Gen. 2005-095).
This office and the leading commentators on the FOIA have observed that personnel files
usually include: employment applications; school transcripts; payroll-related documents, such as
information about reclassifications, promotions, or demotions; transfer records; health and life
insurance forms; performance evaluations; recommendation letters; disciplinary-action records;
requests for leave-without-pay; certificates of advanced training or education; and legal
documents, such as subpoenas. E.g., Op. AtUy Gen. 97-368; John J. Watkins, Richard J. Peltz-
Steele & Robert Steinbuch, THE ARKANSAS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 205-06 (Arkansas
Law Press, 6th ed., 2017).
® Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12): “It is the specific intent of this section that the following
shall not be deemed to be made open to the public under the provisions of this chapter....
[p]ersonnel records to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy.”
7 Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1): “Notwithstanding subdivision (b)(12) of this section, all
employce evaluation or job performance records, including preliminary notes and other materials,
shall be open to public inspection only upon final administrative resolution of any suspension or
termination proceeding at which the records form a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate
the employee and if there is a compelling public interest in their disclosure.”
Ms. Doris Anderson
Opinion No. 2022-040
Page 4
a. Personnel-records exception.
The first of the two most relevant potential exceptions is the one for “personnel
records,” which the FOIA does not define. But this office has consistently opined
that “personnel records” are all records other than “employee evaluation or job-
performance records” that pertain to individual employees.® Whether a particular
record meets this definition is a question of fact that can only be definitively
determined by reviewing the record itself. If a document meets this definition,
then it is open to public inspection and copying except “to the extent that
disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
While the FOIA docs not define the phrase “clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy,” the Arkansas Supreme Court, in Young v. Rice," has provided
some guidance. To determine whether the release of a personnel record would
constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” the Court applics
a balancing test that weighs the public’s interest in accessing the records against
the individual’s interest in keeping them private. The balancing takes place with
the scale tipped in favor of disclosure."|
The balancing test claborated by Young v. Rice has two steps. First, the custodian
must assess whether the information contained in the requested document is of a
personal or intimate nature such that it gives rise to a greater than de minimis
privacy interest.'? If the privacy interest is merely de minimis, then the thumb on
the scale favoring disclosure outweighs the privacy interest. Second, if the
information docs give rise to a greater than de minimis privacy interest, then the
custodian must determine whether that interest is outweighed by the public’s
interest in disclosure.'? Because the exceptions must be narrowly construed, the
person resisting disclosure bears the burden of showing that, under the
8 See, e.g., Ops. Att’y Gen. 2015-072, 99-147; Watkins, ef al., at 202.
° Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
© 308 Ark, 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
'l Watkins, ef a/., at 208.
'2 Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
'3 Id,, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
Ms. Doris Anderson
Opinion No, 2022-040
Page 5
circumstances, his privacy interests outweigh the public’s interests.!4 The fact that
the subject of records may consider release of the records an unwarranted invasion
of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is objective.!>
Whether any particular personnel record’s release would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is always a question of fact.!®
Additionally, a requester’s identity or motive for making a request under the FOIA
is generally irrelevant as to whether a non-exempt public record must be
released.'” Again, 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.'® This ordinarily precludes the
custodian from considering any subjective motives or the identity of a requester
when making the determinations whether a record must be disclosed or withheld.'?
Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it
may contain discrete pieces of information that have to be redacted. Some items
that must be redacted include:
e Personal contact information of public employees, including personal
telephone numbers, personal e-mail addresses, and home addresses (Ark.
Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13));
e Employee personnel number (Ops. Att’y Gen. 2014-094, 2007-070):
Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 (1998).
'5 Fg, Ops. Att’y Gen. 2016-055, 2001-112, 2001-022, 94-198; Watkins, ef al., at 207.
'© Ops. Att’y Gen. 2006-176, 2004-260, 2003-336, 98-001.
"7 Ops. Att’y Gen. 2019-036, 2018-125, 2014-094, 2012-014, 2011-107.
18 See Ops. Att’y Gen. 2019-047, 2018-061.
19 See Ops. Att’y Gen. 2018-087, 2018-061; see also Op. Atty Gen. 2014-094 (noting that
“neither the Arkansas Legislature nor our appellate courts have allowed custodians to consider
the subjective motive of the requester.”). While the requester’s subjective motive cannot be the
basis for the decision, it can be considered by the custodian to determine whether it supplies an
objective public interest previously unseen. Op. Att’y Gen. 2014-094 at n.8.
It should also be noted that the General Assembly has not seen fit to include a generalized
“harassment” exemption to the release of otherwise disclosable employee-related records. Op.
Att’y Gen, 2019-047 (and opinions cited therein).
Ms. Doris Anderson
Opinion No, 2022-040
Page 6
e Marital status of employees and information about dependents (Op. Att’y
Gen. 2001-080);
e Dates of birth of public employees (Op. Att’y Gen. 2007-064);
e Social security numbers (Ops. Att’y Gen. 2006-035, 2003-153);
e Medical information (Op. Att’y Gen. 2003-153);
e Any information identifying certain law enforcement officers currently
working undercover (Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(10));
e Driver’s license number and photocopy of driver’s license (Ops. Att'y Gen.
2017-125, 2013-090);
e Insurance coverage (Op. Att’y Gen. 2004-167);
e Tax information or withholding (Ops. Atty Gen. 2005-194, 2003-385);
e Payroll deductions (Op. Att’y Gen. 98-126); and
e Banking information (Op. Att’y Gen. 2005-194).
b. Employee-evaluation exception.
The second potentially relevant exception is for “employee evaluation or job
performance records,” which the FOIA likewise docs not define.” But the
Arkansas Supreme Court has adopted this office’s view that the term refers to any
records (1) created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the
employee (3) that detail the employee’s performance or lack of performance on
the job! This exception includes records generated while investigating
allegations of employee misconduct that detail incidents that gave rise to an
allegation of misconduct.”
Additionally, some employee-related records constitute “mixed records,” i.c.,
records that constitute (1) more than one person’s evaluation, (2) at least one
person’s evaluation and at least one other person’s personnel record, or (3) more
20] will refer to this group of records as “employee-evaluation records.”
*! Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387. See also Ops. Att’y Gen. 2009-067, 2008-004.
2007-225, 2006-038, 2005-030, 2003-073, 98-006, 97-222, 95-351, 94-306, and 93-055.
2 Thomas, 2012 Ark. 66, at 9-10, 399 S.W.3d at 392-93.
Ms. Doris Anderson
Opinion No. 2022-040
Page 7
than one person’s personnel record.?
Ifa document meets the above definition, the document cannot be released unless
all the following elements have been met:
-
The employee was suspended or terminated (i.e., level of discipline);
-
There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or
termination proceeding (i.e., finality); -
The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that
proceeding to suspend or terminate the employcce (i.e., basis); and -
The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records
in question (i.c., compelling interest).”4
As for the final prong, the FOIA never defines the key phrase “compelling public
interest.” But the leading commentators on the FOIA, referring to this office’s
opinions, have offered the following guidelines:
[I]t seems that the following factors should be considered in
determining whether a compelling public interest is present: (1) the
nature of the infraction that led to suspension or termination, with
particular concern as to whether violations of the public trust or
gross incompetence are involved; (2) the existence of a public
controversy related to the agency and its employees; and (3) the
employce’s position within the agency. In short, a gencral interest in
the performance of public employees should not be considered
compelling, because that concern, at Icast theoretically, always
exists. Ilowever, a link between a given public controversy, an
agency associated with the controversy in a specific way, and an
employee within the agency who commits a serious breach of public
trust should be sufficient to satisfy the “compelling public interest”
requirement.”
These commentators also note that “the status of the employee” or “his rank
within the bureaucratic hierarchy” may be relevant in determining whether a
*3 See Op. Att’y Gen. 2020-037 (and opinions cited therein).
4 Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1); Op. At’y Gen. 2008-065.
*5 Watkins, ef al., at 238-39 (footnotes omitted).
Ms. Doris Anderson
Opinion No, 2022-040
Page 8
“compelling public interest” exists,?° which is always a question of fact that must
be determined, in the first instance, by the custodian after considering all the
relevant information.
The primary purpose of this exception is to preserve the confidentiality of the
formal job-evaluation process in order to promote honest exchanges in the
employee/employer relationship.”’
III. Application.
Because I have not reviewed the actual records at issue, I am unable to definitively
opine on whether the custodian’s decisions are consistent with the FOIA. It is the
custodian’s duty in the first instance to properly classify the records and then apply
the appropriate tests for disclosure.
However, it is my opinion that your objections to disclosure are not cognizable
under the FOIA. First, you object to disclosure on account that the Department
has kept the records beyond the date it was required to keep them under the state
Records Retention Schedule. That objection is unavailing. As the introduction to
the Schedule provides, the retention periods for the numerous kinds of records
under the Schedule are the minimum retention periods.?? Such minimum retention
periods “are not intended to prevent individual agencies from establishing longer
retention periods for any of their records.”?? Moreover, and regardless of the
minimum retention periods provided in the Schedule, “an agency may determine
any of its records may be of permanent value to agency operations, may have
external requirements for perpetual retention, or may be uscful for the study of
history. Such records should be kept permanently.“° Finally, the retention
periods apply only to official versions of a record. “Duplicates of the official
26 Id, at 237 (noting that “{a]s a practical matter, such an interest is more likely to be present when
a high-level employee is involved than when the [records] of ‘rank-and-file’ workers are at
issue”).
27 Cf. Op. Att’y Gen. 96-168; Watkins, ev a/., at 223.
°8 See Arkansas General Records Retention Schedule, found at htps://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/
images/uploads/intergovernmentalServicesOffice/rec_retention_schedule.pdf at 5.
29 Td.
30 Id.
Ms. Doris Anderson
Opinion No, 2022-040
Page 9
version have no retention requirements under this schedule, even if the duplicates
are found in different media.”*!
It is clear from the Records Retention Schedule that it sets time periods that an
agency must keep records. It does not require an agency to destroy records after
their minimum retention periods. And as long as a record is kept by an agency
(and meets the other requirements to be considered a public record),°? it is subject
to disclosure under the FOIA, absent an applicable exemption.
Second, your objection that your signature has not been redacted from the records
is equally ineffective. This office has generally held that there is no clear basis for
concluding that the Young v. Rice balancing test for personnel records requires the
redaction of images of public employces’ signatures.*?> Under the limited facts
before me, I can see no reason to deviate from that general rule in this instance.
Sincerely,
a are C4 op
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
a
Pas
"Id
* See supra n.2,
33 Op. Att’y Gen. 2015-011. See also Op. Awy Gen. 2016-118 at n.17 (“1 note here that one of
your objections concerns the fact that some of the records contain images of your signatures,
which you believe could potentially be used for nefarious purposes, such as identity theft or
fraud. This office has previously opined that the balancing test for personnel records under
Young likely does not require such redactions.”).