Can a public agency release nonelected employees' names alongside their salaries under Arkansas FOIA?
Plain-English summary
The Northwest Regional Housing Authority received a FOIA request on January 25, 2024 for a comprehensive employee compensation report covering all 2023 employees (including part-time, temporary, seasonal, and elected officials). The requested fields were: year of compensation, first name, middle initial, last name, hire date, base salary, bonus, overtime, gross annual wages, and position title.
The Authority decided to release the data. Two of its employees, Debbie Kirkendoll and Stan Watters, exercised their right under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) to seek an AG opinion. Their objection was narrow: they did not object to the salary or compensation information, only to the inclusion of their names alongside that data.
The AG's analysis is short and follows established precedent. Under Arkansas FOIA, records reflecting nonelected public employees' names, job positions, salaries, payroll, or benefit information are "personnel records" governed by A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). Personnel records must be released unless disclosure would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under the Young v. Rice balancing test.
The AG has long held that the release of a public employee's name is generally not a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Public employees' identities are inseparable from the public's interest in knowing how its tax money is being spent. The privacy interest in a name (when paired with public-salary data) is not greater than de minimis; the thumb on the scale for disclosure controls.
Therefore, the Authority's decision to release the names along with the requested compensation data is consistent with FOIA.
What this means for you
Public employees
If you work for a public agency in Arkansas, including a housing authority, school district, county, or municipality, your name and salary information are public records. You cannot block release by objecting under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). The AG opinion process gives you a procedural right to seek a non-binding determination, but the substantive law is settled against the kind of objection raised here.
What is protected? Personal contact information under § 25-19-105(b)(13): home address, home or mobile phone, marital status, dependents, payroll deduction details, social security number, date of birth (for nonelected employees), and similar items. Those redactions apply automatically. They do not extend to your name.
If you are concerned about your name appearing on a salary list, consider whether your specific situation falls within a recognized exception (such as for protected witnesses or victims of domestic violence under separate statutory protections). General privacy preferences do not qualify.
Public agency records custodians
When you receive a comprehensive employee-compensation request, your release decision is largely automatic. The fields the Northwest Regional Housing Authority planned to release (name, hire date, base salary, bonus, overtime, gross wages, position title) are the standard personnel-record fields the AG and Arkansas Supreme Court treat as releasable.
Your redaction obligations are narrow but mandatory. Strip out home address, home/mobile phone, marital status, dates of birth (for nonelected employees), social security numbers, and payroll deduction details before release. Run the file through a redaction protocol; do not release raw HR exports.
Document the FOIA response: date of request, employee notification (if any), records released, and any redactions applied. Notification to employees is a courtesy, not a statutory requirement, but most agencies give it because employees occasionally identify protected information the custodian missed.
FOIA requesters
If you are a journalist, watchdog, or researcher seeking public-payroll data, the request format that worked here is portable: a clean column list (name fields, hire date, base salary, bonus, overtime, gross annual wages, position title) covering all employees in a defined fiscal or calendar year. Specifying "electronic file" prevents the agency from imposing photocopying fees and forces a digital response.
Expect a brief delay if employees exercise their § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) opinion right. The statute does not impose a hard pause but agencies often hold the records pending the AG's response. The AG's response usually comes quickly, especially in well-settled cases like this one.
Investigative journalists
Public-payroll data is a foundational reporting tool. Pair it with a few years of prior data and you can identify outliers (sudden jumps in compensation, new positions, large bonuses) that frequently signal stories. The Northwest Regional Housing Authority case is unusual only in the employees' attempt to block release; the underlying data set is exactly what reporters routinely obtain.
Taxpayers and watchdog groups
If you live in a special-purpose taxing district (housing authority, water district, fire protection district, etc.), the same FOIA framework applies. You can obtain the compensation data of all employees, with the same protections and the same scope. Adapt the Northwest Regional Housing Authority request format to your local agency.
Common questions
Why are public employees' names not protected?
Because the public has a strong interest in knowing how tax dollars are spent, and that interest extends to identifying which specific employees are being paid. A salary list with redacted names would be useless for accountability purposes. Arkansas's FOIA framework reflects that judgment.
What if an employee has a protective order or is a domestic-violence victim?
Some specific statutes outside § 25-19-105(b) provide narrow protections for protected categories. If you fall within one of those categories, raise it specifically with the custodian before release. The general personnel-records framework does not protect names absent a statutory basis.
Are elected officials treated differently?
Yes. Elected officials' personal contact information is not protected to the same degree as nonelected employees' under § 25-19-105(b)(13). Their salaries and identities are even more clearly public.
Can the agency charge for compiling the report?
Arkansas FOIA permits reasonable copying fees for hard-copy records but generally does not allow charges for compiling or producing electronic records that already exist in the agency's systems. A simple HR-system export should be free or near-free.
What about temporary or seasonal employees?
The FOIA request explicitly covered them and the AG analysis does not draw a distinction. Their names and salary information are equally subject to disclosure.
Why did only two employees object?
The opinion does not say. Most public-payroll FOIA requests do not generate objections. When they do, the objections typically come from a small number of employees who are concerned about the visibility of their compensation.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). Personnel records are open to inspection except where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). Authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of certain employee-related records to seek an AG opinion on the custodian's release decision.
Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992). The two-step balancing test for personnel-record disclosure: (1) is the privacy interest greater than de minimis? and (2) does the public's interest outweigh that privacy interest? With "a thumb on the scale" for disclosure.
Standard personnel fields. AG Ops. 2022-039, 2021-084, 2012-014, 2011-132, 2002-107, 1998-126, 1996-205 establish that names, job positions, salaries, payroll, and benefit information are personnel records.
Public-employee names. AG Ops. 2022-039, 2019-008, 2018-093, 2016-103, 2011-114, 2007-070, 2005-057, 1995-220, 1990-335 establish that release of a public-employee name is generally not a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records, Young balancing)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion authority)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
- AG Ops. 2022-039, 2021-084, 2012-014, 2011-132, 2002-107, 1998-126, 1996-205 (personnel-record classification)
- AG Ops. 2022-039, 2019-008, 2018-093, 2016-103, 2011-114, 2007-070, 2005-057, 1995-220, 1990-335 (public-employee names)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2024-022
January 31, 2024
Ms. Debbie Kirkendoll
Northwest Regional Housing Authority
114 Sisco Avenue
Post Office Box 2568
Harrison, Arkansas 72602
Mr. Stanley Watters
Northwest Regional Housing Authority
114 Sisco Avenue
Post Office Box 2568
Harrison, Arkansas 72602
Dear Ms. Kirkendoll and Mr. Watters:
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 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i). This law 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 indicate that your employer, the Northwest Regional Housing Authority ("NWRHA"), notified you and other employees via letter dated January 26, 2024 that it had a received a FOIA request on January 25, 2024 for "[a]n electronic file…of any and all Northwest Regional Housing Authority employees including part-time, temporary, seasonal employees and elected officials for year of 2023 (fiscal or calendar year). Each employee record should contain the year of compensation, first name, middle initial, last name, hire date (mm-dd-yyyy), base salary amount, bonus amount, overtime amount, gross annual wages and position title." Based on the information you have provided, which includes the NWRHA's letter notifying employees of the FOIA request, your employer believes "the requested information is releasable." But you have not provided me the actual information or documents your employer is releasing.
You object only to your "names being included in the request," and do not otherwise "have a problem" with the requested information.
RESPONSE
This office has long concluded that, under the FOIA, records reflecting nonelected public-employees' names, job positions, salaries, payroll, or benefit information are considered "personnel records." Under the FOIA, a personnel record must be disclosed unless "that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
This office has also long concluded that the release of a public employee's name does not generally "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" and are generally subject to disclosure. Therefore, based on the information you have provided with your opinion request, it is my opinion that the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General