When the City of Hampton received a FOIA request for a former police officer's personnel file, which pieces of information could the city release and which had to be blacked out?
Subject
Whether the Hampton Police Department's intended redactions and disclosures of former Officer Cody Wilson's personnel file comply with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, on a request submitted simultaneously by the chief (as records custodian) and Wilson (as the records' subject).
Plain-English summary
The City of Hampton received a FOIA request for the "personnel file" of Cody Wilson, a former Hampton police officer. Chief Tischa Beaty-Johnson (the records custodian) and Wilson (the records' subject) both asked the AG whether the chief's planned redactions matched what the FOIA actually requires. Both sides have an explicit statutory right to ask under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
The chief planned to release the file with these items redacted: phone number, address, date of birth, social security number, beneficiary name and relationship from LOPFI and COBRA forms, plus an ACF application number, salary information, a co-borrower's name and signature on an employment verification, and a witness signature on a LOPFI form. Wilson objected to release of the records.
The AG sorted the redactions into three buckets:
Properly redacted (privacy interest outweighs public interest). Phone number, address, date of birth, social security number are personal contact and identifier information protected under § 25-19-105(b)(13) and the personal-privacy clause in § 25-19-105(b)(12). The beneficiary name and relationship on LOPFI (Local Police and Fire Pension Plan) and COBRA forms also reach the privacy threshold; that information identifies family members and personal relationships, not the officer's job performance. The chief got these right.
Improperly redacted (no FOIA basis). The ACF application number, salary information, the co-borrower's name and signature on the employment verification form, and the witness signature on a LOPFI form do not meet the personal-privacy bar. Salary in particular is settled: the AG has previously opined (Op. 2011-045) that public-employee salaries must be disclosed under FOIA. Employment verification forms are not personal or intimate enough to trigger more than minimal privacy interest. These should be unredacted before release.
Missed redaction (must be added). The file contains information about Officer Wilson's marital status. Marital status is a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under prior AG opinions (Op. 2015-003). The custodian must redact it before release.
The AG also confirmed that the chief correctly classified the records as "personnel records" rather than "employee evaluation or job-performance records." The distinction matters because the test for releasing each category is different. Personnel records use the Young v. Rice balancing test (privacy versus public interest, with the scale tipped toward disclosure). Evaluation records have a stricter four-element bar (suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance, compelling public interest) that all has to be met before release. The Hampton file did not contain materials created to evaluate Wilson's performance, so the personnel-records framework applies throughout.
What this means for you
Public records custodians and police chiefs
Use this opinion as a template when handling FOIA requests for officer personnel files. The work is in three layers:
- Classify each document. Personnel record vs. employee evaluation/job performance record. This is the first decision and it controls everything downstream. If the document was created by the employer to evaluate the employee, it's an evaluation record. Pension forms, contact information forms, employment verifications, ACF/financial paperwork are all personnel records.
- For personnel records, redact protected fields. The list the AG validates in this opinion: personal phone, address, date of birth, social security number, beneficiary name and relationship on benefit forms. Also (per other opinions) employee identification numbers, marital status, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, banking information, tax withholdings, and insurance coverage details.
- Don't over-redact. Salary is public. Job titles are public. Names of references in job applications are public. Employment verification forms are generally public. Over-redaction creates a separate FOIA violation, and the AG will say so when asked.
If you are unsure, send the custodian's planned redactions to the AG under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B). The AG can give you cover before the records go out.
Law enforcement officers (current and former)
You have your own seat at the table. Section 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) lets you request an AG review when you are the subject of a personnel-records release. Object early; the request must reach the AG quickly because the FOIA timelines are tight. Note that the AG cannot block disclosure based on your subjective view of privacy invasion. The test is objective: would the typical person view this disclosure as a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy? Sentimental privacy interests (you don't want anyone to see this) and reputational concerns do not move the needle. Substantive private content (medical, family relationships, financial detail) does.
Human resources staff
The opinion is a clean rule for what to redact on benefit-related paperwork like LOPFI and COBRA forms. Beneficiary names and relationships are private; co-borrower names and witness signatures are not. Don't fall into the habit of redacting everything that has a name on it; redact only what protects the substantive privacy interest the courts and AG have identified.
FOIA requesters
If you receive heavily redacted personnel records, you can challenge specific redactions. Salary is the easiest example: any redaction of public-employee salary on FOIA-personnel-records production is improperly applied. You can ask the AG for an opinion under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B), or you can sue under the FOIA if the custodian won't budge.
Common questions
Q: Why was the salary information redaction wrong but the date of birth redaction right?
Different privacy interests. Salary is a public-employee compensation fact: taxpayers are paying for it and have a strong interest in knowing what their employees earn. Arkansas case law and AG opinions have settled this. Date of birth is personal-identifier information that, combined with name, supports identity theft and other harms; it has a real privacy interest with little corresponding public interest in disclosure.
Q: What's the difference between a "personnel record" and an "employee evaluation record"?
Personnel records relate to an individual employee but were not created by or for the employer to evaluate the employee. Examples: job applications, pension forms, training certifications, tax withholding forms, salary records. Evaluation records were created by the employer (or at the employer's request) to evaluate the employee. Examples: performance review forms, suspension letters that detail the misconduct, internal affairs investigation reports.
The two have very different release standards. Personnel records use a balancing test with the scale tipped toward disclosure. Evaluation records cannot be released unless all four elements are met: suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance, and compelling public interest.
Q: Why does the AG say marital status has to be redacted?
Information about marital status is a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under prior AG opinions (Op. 2015-003). It tells the public something about the employee's family life that has no bearing on the public's interest in the employee's job performance. Same logic applies to information about children, family relationships, and other personal-life facts that show up incidentally in benefits forms.
Q: Can the officer block release entirely if he or she objects?
No. The objection is a procedural right (you can ask the AG to review the custodian's decisions), not a substantive veto. The custodian's release decision controls unless the AG identifies a specific FOIA violation. Wilson's objection is what triggered AG review here, but the AG ultimately confirmed the file should be released (with adjusted redactions).
Q: Why does it matter that the chief did not give the AG unredacted copies?
The AG's review depends on seeing what's actually being released. With only redacted copies, the AG cannot confirm that the underlying redacted text matches the categories the chief described. Best practice in custodian-initiated review is to include both versions: the redacted release copy and the unredacted original, so the AG can apply the law to the actual content.
Q: Should the chief and the officer file separate § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B) requests, or one joint request?
Either works. Here both filed under the same opinion request and the AG processed them together. The statute allows both the custodian and the records subject to ask, and the AG's response covers both.
Background and statutory framework
The Arkansas FOIA defines public records broadly under A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A): writings, recordings, films, tapes, electronic information, or data compilations of any medium that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions by a public official or employee. There is a rebuttable presumption that records held by a public entity are public records (Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)).
Under Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511, three elements determine whether a record must be disclosed: the request was made to a FOIA-covered entity, the requested document is a public record, and no exceptions allow withholding.
The two relevant exceptions for personnel files are:
- Personnel records exception in § 25-19-105(b)(12): excludes "personnel records to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Arkansas Supreme Court applies the Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992) balancing test, weighing the public's interest in access against the individual's privacy interest, with the scale tipped toward access.
- Personal contact information exception in § 25-19-105(b)(13): exempts personal phone numbers, personal email addresses, and home addresses of certain public employees.
- Employee evaluation/job performance exception in § 25-19-105(c)(1): allows release only when all four elements are met (suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance to the discipline decision, compelling public interest).
The personnel-records framework distinguishes between the document as a whole (Young v. Rice balancing) and discrete pieces of information within it (§ 25-19-105(f) requires segregable redaction even when the document overall is releasable). That's how a personnel record can be released with specific items like marital status or social security number redacted.
The taxonomy of what constitutes a "personnel record" is in the Watkins treatise (The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, 6th ed. 2017) and the AG's prior opinions: job titles, salary and payroll records, change-of-status records, pension and benefit records, sick leave and vacation records, voluntary demotion requests, background investigations, and employee photographs.
The taxonomy of "employee evaluation or job performance record" is from Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387, and Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466, which have approved the AG-developed three-element definition: created by or at the behest of the employer, to evaluate the employee, detailing the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11), (12), (13)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1), (c)(3)(B)(i)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f)
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511
- Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387
- Davis v. Van Buren School District, 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466
- John J. Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (6th ed. 2017)
- Prior AG opinions cited: Ops. 2024-095, 2024-045, 2023-120, 2023-012, 2020-028, 2016-055, 2015-072, 2015-057, 2015-003, 2011-051, 2011-045, 2009-067, 2008-065, 2006-038, 2003-073, 2001-112, 2001-028, 99-147, 96-168, 95-351, 94-198, 93-055
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2025-020
April 3, 2025
Tischa Beaty-Johnson
Chief of Police
Via email only: [email protected]
Cody Wilson
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Chief Beaty-Johnson and Officer Wilson:
You have both requested an opinion from this Office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). These requests are made under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)—Chief
Beaty-Johnson’s as the custodian; Officer Wilson’s as the subject of the records.
You indicate that the City of Hampton received a FOIA request for the “personnel file” of
Officer Wilson, who is a former employee of the Hampton Police Department. The records
custodian has classified the personnel file as personnel records, and the custodian intends to release
those records with redactions of Officer Wilson’s phone number, address, date of birth, social
security number, and beneficiary name and relationship from LOPFI and COBRA forms. The
custodian also intends to redact the ACF application number, salary information, co-borrower’s
name and signature from employment verification, and witness signature from a LOPFI form.
The custodian has provided me with a redacted copy of the personnel file but not an unredacted
copy. Officer Wilson objects to the release of the records. You ask if the custodian’s decisions are
consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified the personnel records and has properly
redacted Officer Wilson’s phone number, address, date of birth, social security number, and
beneficiary name and relationship from LOPFI and COBRA forms. But the custodian’s redactions
of the ACF application number, salary information, co-borrower’s name and signature from
employment verification, and witness signature from a LOPFI form are inconsistent with the
FOIA. Additionally, the custodian needs to redact information related to Officer Wilson’s marital
status.
TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Tischa Beaty-Johnson
Cody Wilson
Opinion No. 2025-020
Page 2
DISCUSSION
1. General rules. A document must be disclosed in response to a FOIA request if (1) the request
was directed to an entity subject to the FOIA, (2) the requested document is a public record, and
(3) no exceptions allow the document to be withheld.1
The first two elements appear to be met. The request was made to the City of Hampton—a public
entity subject to the FOIA.2 And the records at issue appear to be public records.3 Because these
records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records,4 although that
presumption is rebuttable.5 I have no information to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted
here, so I will focus on whether any exceptions prevent the documents’ disclosure.
For FOIA purposes, documents in a public employee’s file can usually be divided into two
mutually exclusive groups: “personnel records”6 and “employee evaluation or job performance
records.”7 Personnel records are records that pertain to an individual employee that were not
created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee.8 Employee evaluation and
job-performance records, on the other hand, are records (1) created by or at the behest of the
1 Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, at 8, 402 S.W.3d 511, 515.
2 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-095, 2023-120, 2020-028.
3 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.”
A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A).
4 Id.
5 See Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 440–41, 260 S.W.3d 718, 722 (2007) (“[T]he
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, i.e., if they do not ‘constitute a record of the performance or lack of
performance of official functions.’” (quoting Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-095)).
6 A.C.A. § 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 Id. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (“[A]ll employee 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.”)
8 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 99-147. Tischa Beaty-Johnson
Cody Wilson
Opinion No. 2025-020
Page 3
employer (2) to evaluate the employee (3) that detail the employee’s performance or lack of
performance on the job.9
The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs significantly. When
reviewing documents to determine whether to release under the FOIA, the custodian must first
decide whether a record meets the definition of either a “personnel record” or an “employment
evaluation or job performance record” and then apply the appropriate test for that record to
determine whether the record should be release under the FOIA.
2. Personnel records. A personnel record is open to public inspection except “to the extent that
disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”10 While the FOIA
does not define the phrase “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” the Arkansas
Supreme Court has provided some guidance. In Young v. Rice, the Court applied a balancing test
that weighs the public’s interest in accessing the records against the individual’s interest in keeping
them private.11 The balancing test, which takes place “with the scale tipped in favor of public
access,” has two steps.12
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 minimal privacy interest.13 If
the privacy interest is minimal, then disclosure is required. Second, if the information gives rise to
a greater than minimal privacy interest, then the custodian must determine whether that privacy
interest is outweighed by the public’s interest in disclosure.14
Because the exceptions must be narrowly construed, the person resisting disclosure bears the
burden of showing that, under the circumstances, the employee’s privacy interests outweigh the
public’s interests.15 The fact that the subject of the records may consider release of the records an
9 Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, at 8–9, 399 S.W.3d 387, 392; see also Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App.
466, at 7–8, 572 S.W.3d 466, 471 (noting that “[o]ur supreme court has approved” the definition of
employee-evaluation records developed by the Attorney General’s Office); Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-057, 2009-067,
2006-038, 2003-073, 95-351, 93-055 (demotion).
10 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
11 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
12 John J. Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act 208 (6th ed. 2017).
13 Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
14 Id.
15 Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 (1998). Tischa Beaty-Johnson
Cody Wilson
Opinion No. 2025-020
Page 4
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is
objective.16
Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain
discrete pieces of information that must be redacted.17 For instance, the FOIA exempts the personal
contact information of certain public employees from disclosure, including their personal
telephone numbers, personal email addresses, and home addresses.18
3. Employee-evaluation records. The second relevant exception is for “employee evaluation or
job performance records,” which are 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.19 “This exception includes records generated while investigating allegations of employee
misconduct that detail incidents that gave rise to an allegation of misconduct.”20
If a document qualifies as an employee-evaluation record, the document cannot be released unless
all the following elements have been met:
1. The employee was suspended or terminated (i.e., level of discipline);
2. There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or termination
proceeding (i.e., finality);
3. The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to
suspend or terminate the employee (i.e., relevance); and
4. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question (i.e.,
compelling interest).21
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:
16 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-055, 2001-112, 2001-028, 94-198; Watkins et al., supra note 12, at 207.
17 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f).
18 See id. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
19 Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, at 8–9, 399 S.W.3d 387, 392; see also Davis, 2019 Ark. App. 466, at 7–8, 572 S.W.3d
at 471 (noting that “[o]ur supreme court has approved” the definition of employee-evaluation records developed by
the Attorney General’s Office); Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-057, 2009-067, 2006-038, 2003-073, 95-351, and 93-055.
20 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2015-057 (collecting citations).
21 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1); e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2008-065. Tischa Beaty-Johnson
Cody Wilson
Opinion No. 2025-020
Page 5
[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 employee’s
position within the agency. In short, a general interest in the performance of public
employees should not be considered compelling because that concern, at least
theoretically, always exists. However, 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.22
These commentators also note that “[t]he status of the employee” or “his or her rank within the
bureaucratic hierarchy” may be relevant in determining whether a “compelling public interest”
exists,23 which is always a question of fact that must be determined, in the first instance, by the
custodian after he considers all the relevant information.24 The primary purpose of this exception
is to preserve the confidentiality of the formal job-evaluation process in order to promote honest
exchanges between employees and their employers.25
4. Classification and disclosure of personnel records. “Personnel records” encompass many
types of information found in a personnel file: job titles, salary and payroll records, change-of-
status records, pension and benefit records, records of sick leave and vacation time, requests for
voluntary demotion, background investigations, and photographs of the employee.26 Here, the
custodian has correctly classified these documents as personnel records because they relate to
Officer Wilson, but they were not created by the employer to evaluate him.
A personnel record must be released when the public’s interest in the record outweighs the
employee’s privacy interest in the document. Other than some of the redacted information, which
I discuss below, these records do not contain information that is of a private or intimate nature.
Thus, the custodian’s decision to release these documents is consistent with the FOIA.
5. Redactions of personnel records. Although I do not have unredacted copies of the records, it
appears from the surrounding information in the redacted copies that the custodian has properly
identified some discrete pieces of information contained in the records are personal contact
22 Watkins et al., supra note 12, at 238–39.
23 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”).
24 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-045, 2023-012, 2015-057, 2011-051.
25 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 96-168.
26 Watkins et al., supra note 12, at 203–04. Tischa Beaty-Johnson
Cody Wilson
Opinion No. 2025-020
Page 6
information27 or of a personal or intimate nature and have a greater than minimal privacy interest.28
The redacted information is Officer Wilson’s phone number, address, date of birth, social security
number, and beneficiary name and relationship from LOPFI and COBRA forms. The custodian
has properly determined that disclosure of this information would be a clearly unwarranted
invasion of privacy. So the custodian’s decision to redact this information is consistent with the
FOIA.
But the custodian has also redacted the ACF application number, salary information,
co-borrower’s name and signature from employment verification, and witness signature from a
LOPFI form. This Office has previously opined that disclosing an employee’s salary is not a clearly
unwarranted invasion of privacy.29 Also, employment verification forms are not of a personal or
intimate nature that they would have more than a minimal privacy interest. Because Officer
Wilson’s privacy interests in this information do not outweigh the public’s interest in accessing it,
that information should not be redacted.
Finally, this Office has previously opined that information regarding an employee’s marital status
is a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.30 The custodian should redact that information before
releasing the records.
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
27 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
28 Id. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
29 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2011-045 (opining that salaries must be disclosed under the FOIA).
30 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2015-003 (opining that “information about marital status and family life must be redacted under
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12)’s ‘clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy’ standard”).