Can a public agency release nonelected employees' names alongside their salaries under Arkansas FOIA?

Plain-English summary

Two employees of the Northwest Regional Housing Authority objected to having their names included in an electronic file requested under Arkansas FOIA. The request sought 2023 compensation information for the authority's employees, including names, hire dates, wages, bonuses, overtime, and job titles. The authority told employees that it believed the information was releasable. The two employees objected only to the release of their names.

The Attorney General said records of nonelected public employees' names, positions, salaries, payroll, and benefits are personnel records. FOIA requires disclosure of those records unless it would be a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” A footnote cites Young v. Rice for a balancing test weighing the public's access interest against the individual's privacy interest. The opinion says an employee's name is generally subject to disclosure. On the information provided, the Attorney General found the custodian's decision consistent with FOIA.

The Attorney General had not received the actual records the authority planned to release. His conclusion addresses the described request and the employees' objection to their names; it does not review every field in an actual export.

What this means for you

Public employees

This opinion gives little support for an objection based solely on including your name in a public compensation list. The Attorney General said employee names are generally disclosable and found the authority's proposed release consistent with FOIA on the facts supplied.

Records custodians

Check the actual records before disclosure. The Attorney General did not see this authority's file, so his opinion does not identify whether it contained information requiring separate review. It does address the two employees' specific objection to their names.

Records requesters

A compensation request can identify the employee as well as the pay information. Here the opinion treated names and payroll information as personnel records and rejected the argument that disclosing the names was generally a clearly unwarranted privacy invasion.

Common questions

Did the employees object to disclosure of salary figures?

No. The opinion quotes them as objecting only to their “names being included in the request” and says they did not otherwise have a problem with the requested information.

Did the Attorney General examine the electronic file?

No. He said the employees had not supplied the actual information or documents the authority planned to release.

Does the opinion decide whether every compensation field may be released?

No. Its conclusion is based on the supplied description of the request and the employees' objection to their names. It does not examine the actual file field by field.

Were employees notified in this request?

Yes. The opinion says the authority notified employees by letter dated January 26, 2024. It does not analyze notification requirements or the timing of release while an Attorney General opinion is pending.

Currency note

This opinion was issued January 31, 2024. Check current FOIA requirements and the contents of a particular record before making a release decision.

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

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. Waters:

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.

Ms. Kirkendoll and Mr.Watters
Northwest Regional Housing Authority
Opinion No. 2024-022
Page 2

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.” 1 Under the FOIA, a personnel record must be disclosed unless “that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 2

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. 3 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

1
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-039, 2021-084, 2012-014, 2011-132, 2002-107, 1998-126, 1996-205.
2
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12); see also Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992) (applying a two- step balancing test that weighs the public’s interest in accessing the records against the individual’s interest in keeping them private). 3 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-039, 2019-008, 2018-093, 2016-103, 2011-114, 2007-070, 2005-057, 1995-220, 1990-335.