Should the Little Rock Police Department release commendation letters in a police officer's personnel file under FOIA, and does it matter who wrote the commendation?
Subject
Whether the City of Little Rock records custodian's decision to release a police officer's personnel file with redacted commendation letters is consistent with the Arkansas FOIA.
Plain-English summary
Russ Racop FOIA'd the City of Little Rock for a police officer's personnel file, "any complaints" about the officer, and "any investigations that resulted in a demotion, suspension or transfer." The custodian redacted commendation letters in the file. Racop objected, noting that "[o]ften these letters stem from a compliment made by a citizen[,] and a department official responds to the person making the compliment and to the officer," and that previous Little Rock Police Department disclosures hadn't redacted commendation letters.
The AG addressed the analytical framework but couldn't give a categorical answer because the custodian had only provided redacted copies, not unredacted ones.
Two categories of commendation letters:
-
Letters created by or at the behest of the employer. These are employee-evaluation records under Thomas v. Hall (created by employer, evaluating the employee, detailing performance). Internal "Unit Commendation Award" letters or formal department recognition letters that praise an employee's performance fall here. The four-part test for release applies. Because commendation letters typically don't involve suspension or termination, prongs 1 and 2 fail. So these letters should be withheld.
-
Unsolicited letters from third parties. A letter from a member of the public praising a police officer is not an evaluation record because it wasn't created by the employer. The AG has consistently held this. AGOps. 2025-003, 2024-074, 2009-146, 2008-135, 2008-053, 2006-176, 2003-153, 93-105, 92-231, 89-368, 83-368 establish the principle. Such letters are personnel records subject to release under the Young v. Rice balancing test (which usually favors release for nonconfidential third-party material).
The hybrid case is where a citizen sends a compliment, the department writes back to both the citizen and the officer, and a department-initiated commendation letter follows. The original citizen letter (if in the file) is third-party / personnel record. The department's responsive commendation letter is employer-created / evaluation record. Even though they may travel together in the file, they get classified differently.
The AG couldn't categorize the two specific letters Racop named (a January 18, 2023 "Unit Commendation Award" and a May 9, 2022 "Letter of Commendation") because he didn't have unredacted copies. Without seeing the content, he couldn't determine whether they were employer-created or unsolicited third-party documents. The AG noted that 26 additional commendation letters were also in the file, all only provided in redacted form.
What this means for you
Police records custodians
Commendation letters need to be classified individually based on who created them. Internal "Unit Commendation Award" type documents are evaluation records. Letters from members of the public praising the officer are personnel records. A response letter from the department to the citizen, which often praises the officer, is evaluation. The classification controls release.
If you are sending records to the AG for review under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i), provide unredacted copies. The AG repeatedly notes inability to fully analyze redacted-only submissions.
Police chiefs
Internal commendation programs probably stay private under FOIA in most cases (no suspension/termination = no release). External commendations from the public typically become public. This shapes how you communicate recognition: an internal "Officer of the Month" memo stays in the personnel file. A letter to the editor praising an officer ends up public if FOIA'd.
If your existing practice has been to release all commendation letters as personnel records (as Racop's prior experience with LRPD suggests), you may have been over-releasing. Internal-employer commendations should not have been released except where the four-part test is met. Reassessing past practice is reasonable.
FOIA requesters
If a custodian withholds a commendation letter, ask whether it was created by the employer or sent unsolicited by a third party. Different classification, different test. You're entitled to unsolicited third-party commendation letters as personnel records (subject to redaction of contact info). You're not entitled to employer-internal commendations unless they meet the four-part evaluation-record test.
Journalists covering police accountability
Citizen complaint letters about police officers are personnel records subject to release (per AGOp. 2025-045 and many earlier opinions). The same logic that makes citizen complaints public also makes citizen commendations public. A balanced view of an officer's record (both criticism and praise) is reachable through FOIA, with the qualifier that internal departmental views (whether positive or negative) are typically harder to access without a final discipline trigger.
City attorneys advising on FOIA responses
Match the redaction analysis to the document type. A blanket "all commendation letters are redacted" rule is wrong for unsolicited third-party letters. A blanket "all commendation letters are public" rule is wrong for employer-created internal commendations. Audit your practice.
Common questions
Q: Why does it matter who wrote the commendation?
The classification key under Thomas v. Hall is whether the document was "created by or at the behest of the employer." That's element 1 of the evaluation-record definition. Without it, the document can't be an evaluation record, regardless of how positive or negative it is. The classification then controls which release test applies.
Q: A citizen sent a thank-you note about an officer. We put it in the file. Is it public?
Probably yes. Unsolicited third-party documents praising an officer are personnel records, not evaluation records. The Young v. Rice balancing test usually favors release because the privacy interest in praise from a citizen is minimal and there's a real public interest in knowing what people say about police officers (positive and negative).
Q: Our chief wrote an internal "Letter of Commendation" praising the officer's response to a high-profile incident. Is that public?
If it was created by the employer to evaluate the officer's performance, it's an evaluation record. The four-part test is your gate. Without suspension or termination tied to the commendation, the test fails. So this letter typically stays private. Internal recognition is internal.
Q: We have a hybrid: a citizen wrote in praising the officer, and the department wrote a responsive letter that includes the citizen's compliment and the department's own praise. What now?
Classify the documents separately. The citizen's letter is third-party / personnel record (release). The department's response letter is employer-created / evaluation record (withhold absent four-part test). Don't treat the package as one unit.
Q: We've released commendation letters for years. Do we have to change our practice?
Yes, if you've been releasing employer-created internal commendations (which the four-part test would normally keep private). The AG opinions cited here go back to 1983 and consistently treat employer-created commendations as evaluation records. If your practice diverged, that was an over-release, and going forward you should classify before releasing.
Q: Why won't the AG just look at the unredacted letters and tell us what to do?
Because the custodian only provided redacted copies. The AG can't categorize a document he hasn't seen. Provide the unredacted copies and the AG can give a categorical ruling.
Background and statutory framework
Under Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387, an evaluation record requires three elements: (1) created by or at the behest of the employer; (2) to evaluate the employee; (3) detailing performance or lack of performance on the job. Without element (1), the document is not an evaluation record.
The AG's settled view that employer-created commendations are evaluation records traces through AGOps. 2025-003, 2024-074, 2009-146, 2008-135, 2008-053, 2006-176, 2003-153, 93-105, 92-231, 89-368, 83-368.
The settled view that unsolicited third-party commendations are personnel records traces through AGOps. 2025-003, 2006-225, 2006-176, 2003-153.
Personnel records get the Young v. Rice balancing test. For commendation letters from the public, the privacy interest is usually minimal (the letter doesn't typically reveal "intimate details of a person's life"), and the public interest favors disclosure.
Evaluation records get the four-part test from A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1): suspension/termination, finality, relevance, compelling public interest. Commendations rarely cross all four prongs because they don't involve adverse action.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (definition of public record)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (four-part test for evaluation records)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (right to AG review)
- Legislative Joint Auditing Committee v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987)
- Pulaski County v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)
- 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
- AGOps. 2025-003, 2024-074, 2009-146, 2008-135, 2008-053, 2006-176, 2003-153, 93-105, 92-231, 89-368, 83-368 (employer-created commendations as evaluation records)
- AGOps. 2025-003, 2006-225, 2006-176, 2003-153 (third-party commendations as personnel records)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2025-035
May 19, 2025
Mr. Russ Racop
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Racop:
After you requested from the City of Little Rock a copy of a police officer's personnel file, a copy of "any complaints" about that police officer, and a copy "of any investigations that resulted in a demotion, suspension or transfer" of that police officer, you have requested an opinion from this Office about whether the custodian's decisions are consistent with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request is made as the requestor of personnel and evaluation records under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
I have been provided for review redacted copies of certain employee records, all of which the City of Little Rock's custodian of records intends to disclose. (I have not been provided with unredacted copies of the records.)
You object to the City of Little Rock's decision to redact commendation letters kept in the police officer's personnel file (your objection to redactions concerns two specific commendation letters: a January 18, 2023 "Unit Commendation Award" letter and a May 9, 2022 "Letter of Commendation"; but included in the provided documents are 26 additional commendation letters, eleven from 2021, nine from 2020, and six from 2022; I have not been provided unredacted copies of any of these commendation letters), noting, "Often these letters stem from a compliment made by a citizen[,] and a department official responds to the person making the compliment and to the officer." Further, you state, "When the city provided copies of [Little Rock Police Department] personnel [records] previously[,] these letters were not redacted."
RESPONSE
The City of Little Rock's custodian of records has determined that the records should be released with certain redactions. I cannot determine whether the custodian's decision to redact certain information is consistent with the FOIA because I was not provided with unredacted copies of the documents. As to your specific objections, and for reasons discussed in the opinion, unsolicited commendation letters created by someone other than the employer should be released, while commendation letters created by the employer should be withheld. But because I was not provided unredacted commendation letters, I cannot review the content and determine whether the custodian's decision to redact such letters is consistent with the FOIA.
DISCUSSION
- General rules. A document must be released 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 FOIA. Second, the requested document must constitute a public record. Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.
The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to the City of Little Rock, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA. And the records at issue appear to be public records. Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records, although that presumption is rebuttable. I have no information, however, to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted, and I will thus turn to whether any exemptions prevent the documents' release.
For purposes of the FOIA, employees' personnel files normally contain two distinct groups of records: "personnel records" and "employee-evaluation or job-performance records." 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 "employee-evaluation or job-performance record" and then apply the appropriate test for that record to determine whether the record should be released under the FOIA.
- Commendation letters made by or at the behest of the employer. This Office has consistently opined that employee-evaluation and job-performance records include written commendations made by or at the behest of an employer. An employee-evaluation record is a record created by or at the behest of an employer; to evaluate the employee; and that details the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job. Thus, commendation letters made by or at the behest of the City of Little Rock cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met:
- Suspension or termination. The employee was suspended or terminated;
- Administrative finality. The suspension or termination is administratively final and is, therefore, incapable of any administrative reversal or modification;
- Relevance. The records in question formed a basis for the decision to suspend or terminate the employee; and
- Compelling interest. The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question.
Because commendation letters made by or at the behest of an employer do not entail suspending or terminating the employee, the first two elements would not be met, and such documents should be withheld.
-
Unsolicited commendation letters made by a third-party. Commendation letters from the public praising a public employee are not employee-evaluation or job-performance records because they do not meet the first requirement of such records: being created by or at the behest of the employer. Consequently, this Office has concluded that unsolicited commendation letters written by third parties, someone other than the employer, are personnel records subject to release.
-
Conclusion. Because I was not provided unredacted copies of the two letters concerning your objection, and thus cannot review the actual content of those letters, I cannot determine whether releasing such commendation letters is consistent with the FOIA. The custodian will need to review those records to determine whether they should be withheld, because they were created by the Little Rock Police Department to evaluate the police officer and detail that officer's performance on the job, or released, because they were created by someone other than the employer.
Additionally, because I have only been provided copies of redacted documents, I cannot conclude whether redactions were properly made.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General