Can Arkansas executive branch agencies release names, departments, and positions of employees who got merit raises?
Plain-English summary
The Arkansas Department of Transformation and Shared Services (TSS) received a FOIA request for a list of executive-branch employees who got merit raises for fiscal year 2023. The request asked for five fields per employee: business area, department name, employee name, position title, and grade. TSS planned to release. The chief legal counsel asked the AG to confirm.
The AG confirmed in a short, direct opinion: yes, this is releasable. The information requested is basic employment information that qualifies as personnel records, and the release does not exceed the Young v. Rice personnel-records balancing test. The AG cited prior opinions (2023-001, 2011-044, 2007-070) that consistently treat name, department, position, and similar baseline employment data as releasable.
This is a useful reference opinion: the AG is sharply consistent that public-employee compensation and basic employment data is public. The privacy interest in routine workplace information is minimal; the public interest in knowing who works for the government and at what level (especially with discretionary compensation events like merit raises) is concrete. The balancing test consistently favors disclosure.
The narrow scope: this opinion does not address the dollar amount of the merit raise (though that is also routinely releasable for state employees), home contact information, or evaluation content underlying the merit decision. Those would be separate items with separate analyses.
What this means for you
State agency records custodians
When you receive a FOIA request for compensation-related lists (raises, bonuses, salaries, position rosters), default to release. The AG's posture is consistent across multiple opinions: this kind of information is presumptively public for state employees. Document your release with a brief memo citing this opinion and Op. 2023-001.
For the discrete fields requested here (business area, department, name, position title, grade), no special review is needed. Apply the standard exemptions to other content in the file (personal contact info, SSN, medical information, evaluation content), but the requested fields themselves do not raise close calls.
If your agency's HR system tracks merit raises in a way that mixes the basic facts (who got a raise) with evaluation content (why they got it), separate the two when responding. The "who" is releasable; the "why" gets the four-part evaluation-records test if requested.
Public employees who received merit raises
The fact that you received a merit raise, your name, department, position, and grade are public information under Arkansas FOIA. You cannot block disclosure on privacy grounds. The information is on the same footing as your name in the state directory.
If you are concerned about retaliation or harassment from someone who learns of your raise, your remedy is outside FOIA (workplace anti-retaliation policies, criminal law if it rises to that level). FOIA itself does not protect against this kind of disclosure.
News media and government accountability advocates
This opinion confirms a well-established disclosure baseline: state government employee compensation events are public. Use FOIA requests to track:
- Who received discretionary raises in a given fiscal year.
- Patterns by department, position grade, or business area.
- Comparison across departments (which units saw the most merit-pay activity).
- Year-over-year changes.
Combine with salary data (presumptively releasable under the same logic) for compensation-trend analysis.
Taxpayer advocates
State employee compensation is public information. If you are tracking aggregate compensation costs, FOIA is your tool. The AG's consistent position is that name-position-compensation is the kind of data that public-records law was designed to keep open.
State agency HR managers
Train your team on the rule: the basic employment fields are releasable. If you have not built a routine FOIA response template for compensation-related requests, do it. The AG's pattern is so consistent that nearly every such request will resolve to release. Building the template once saves repeated case-by-case analysis.
FOIA requesters seeking compensation data
Frame your requests precisely. Ask for the specific fields you need (name, department, position, grade, salary or raise amount). Avoid open-ended requests for "all compensation information," which give the custodian room to apply discretionary exemptions. Targeted requests get cleaner releases.
Common questions
Can I request the dollar amount of each employee's merit raise?
Yes. State employee salaries (and changes to them) have consistently been treated as public. Op. 2023-001 covers this. The dollar amount is a basic employment field.
What about contractors and consultants paid by the state, not state employees?
The analysis differs because contractors are not "employees" with personnel files in the FOIA sense. Contracts themselves are usually public records (subject to trade-secret and other exemptions). Payments to contractors are also typically releasable.
Can my agency redact my name from the merit raise list?
No. Your name, position, and grade are not exempt for state employees. Personal contact information (home address, personal phone, personal email) is exempt under § 25-19-105(b)(13), but your name is not.
What if I had a confidential reason for receiving the raise (e.g., to retain me after a counter-offer)?
The reason might be in your evaluation file, which is governed by the four-part test for evaluation records. The fact of the raise is not exempt. The custodian can release the fact while withholding the reason, if the reason qualifies as protected evaluation content.
Does this apply to local government employees too?
The same FOIA framework applies to local government. Cities, counties, school districts, and other local public entities are subject to FOIA, and the same personnel-records rules apply. Local custodians should reach the same conclusion on basic employment fields.
What about merit raises that were proposed but not awarded?
Proposed but not awarded raises may sit in evaluation files as part of supervisory recommendations. Those records would be subject to the evaluation-records four-part test. The fact of an awarded raise is what crossed the line into the personnel file as a definite event.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas FOIA at A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) exempts personnel records "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Young v. Rice balancing test applies, and the AG has consistently held that basic employment information (name, position, salary, department) does not exceed the privacy threshold.
Compensation-related disclosures are specifically supported by Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2023-001, 2011-044, and 2007-070. These opinions cover salary lists, position rosters, and compensation events.
The subject-request mechanism in § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) authorizes the custodian, requester, or subject to ask the AG to review the custodian's release decision. Here, the custodian asked.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exemption)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (custodian/requester/subject right to AG review)
- Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2023-001, 2011-044, 2007-070 (basic employment information is releasable)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2023-062
July 17, 2023
Shannon Halijan
TSS Chief Legal Counsel
Department of Transformation and Shared Services
501 Woodlane Street, Suite 203
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Dear Ms. Halijan:
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the custodian of the records, is based on A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). The FOIA 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.
You report that your office received a FOIA request seeking the following information for all executive-branch employees who received a merit raise for fiscal year 2023: (1) business area, (2) department name, (3) employee name, (4) position title, and (5) grade. You have decided that this information is a personnel record that must be released, and you have for my review of your decision.
This office has consistently opined that the type of information requested here qualifies as a personnel record that must be released upon request. Therefore, your decision is consistent with the FOIA. (The release of basic employment information does not rise to the level of a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. See Ark. Att'y Gen. Ops. 2023-001, 2011-044, 2007-070.)
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General