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

How the Arkansas FOIA treats employer-created and unsolicited third-party commendation letters in a police officer's personnel file.

Plain-English summary

Russ Racop requested a Little Rock police officer's personnel file, complaints, and certain investigation records. He objected when the custodian redacted commendation letters. He described situations where a citizen compliments an officer and a department official responds, and said earlier productions had included commendation letters. The Attorney General did not treat those descriptions as proof of who created the specific letters.

The AG drew a distinction. Written commendations made by or at the behest of an employer to evaluate an employee's job performance are employee-evaluation records. They cannot be released unless the FOIA's four conditions are met: suspension or termination, administrative finality, a record that formed a basis for the decision, and a compelling public interest. The AG said employer-created commendation letters do not entail suspension or termination, so those letters should be withheld.

Unsolicited commendations written by a member of the public are different. They were not created by or for the employer's evaluation and are personnel records subject to release. The AG could not decide how to classify the two letters Racop identified, or the other commendation letters supplied, because he had only redacted copies. He also could not assess whether the custodian's redactions were proper. He instructed the custodian to review each letter's creator and content.

What this means for you

Records custodians

Inspect each commendation letter before deciding whether to withhold it. The opinion asks whether it was created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate job performance, or was an unsolicited letter from someone outside the employer. Do not classify a department response to a citizen's compliment without examining that particular document. If you ask the AG to assess the decision, provide an unredacted copy.

FOIA requesters

The AG did not decide whether the January 2023 Unit Commendation Award, the May 2022 Letter of Commendation, or the other supplied letters were releasable. The custodian must apply the source-and-purpose distinction to each. The requester’s account of prior releases did not produce a ruling about changing the agency's past practice.

Police departments

The opinion says employer-created commendations evaluating performance should be withheld under the evaluation-record test as described here, while unsolicited third-party commendations are personnel records subject to release. It does not resolve a mixed or responsive letter simply by its title or by the fact that a citizen's compliment prompted it.

Common questions

Are all commendation letters in a personnel file public?

No. The AG distinguishes unsolicited third-party commendations from employer-created evaluations. The statutory release tests differ.

Is a department's reply to a citizen compliment automatically an evaluation record?

The opinion does not decide that. It says the custodian must inspect the letter to determine whether the employer created it to evaluate the officer and detail performance on the job.

Did the AG order release of the two named letters?

No. He lacked unredacted copies of the January 18, 2023 Unit Commendation Award and May 9, 2022 Letter of Commendation, so he could not determine their proper classification or the validity of their redactions.

Does a prior practice of releasing commendations decide this request?

The opinion reports Racop's description of earlier disclosures but gives no ruling on changing that practice. It directs the custodian to classify the records supplied for this request.

Background and statutory framework

An employee-evaluation record is created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate an employee and details job performance or its absence. The opinion cites Thomas v. Hall and Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist. for that definition. A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) supplies the four conditions for release. The AG treats unsolicited commendations from outsiders as personnel records because they lack the employer-creation element.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2025. Check current Arkansas FOIA law and the contents of each letter before applying its classification.

Citations

• A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (public records)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation records)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG review request)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387
• Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466
• Ark. Att'y Gen. Op. 2025-003 (third-party commendations)

Source

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

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, 1 all of which the City of Little Rock’s custodian of records intends to disclose.

You object to the City of Little Rock’s decision to redact commendation letters kept in the police officer’s personnel file, 2 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.”

1
I have not been provided with unredacted copies of the records.
2
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. Mr. Russ Racop Opinion No. 2025-035 Page 2

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

1. 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. 3 Second, the requested document must constitute a public record. 4 Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption. 5

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. 6 And the records at issue appear to be public records. 7 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records, 8 although that presumption is rebuttable. 9 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.

3
Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
See, e.g., A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (including “a public official or employee” or “a governmental agency”).
7
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). 8 Id.
9
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)). Mr. Russ Racop Opinion No. 2025-035 Page 3

For purposes of the FOIA, employees’ personnel files 10 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.

2. 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. 11 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. 12 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. 13
   

10
“Personnel files” are not referenced in the FOIA but typically includes the following documents: employment applications; school transcripts; payroll-related documents such as information about reclassifications, promotions, or demotions; transfer records; health- and life-insurance forms; performance evaluations; recommendation letters; disciplinary-action records; requests for leave-without-pay; certificates of advanced training or education; and legal documents such as subpoenas. E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-104, 97-368; John J. Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act 203–04 (6th ed. 2017). 11 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-003, 2024-074, 2009-146, 2008-135, 2008-053, 2006-176, 2003-153, 93- 105, 92-231, 89-368, 83-368. 12 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. 13 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).
Mr. Russ Racop
Opinion No. 2025-035
Page 4

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.

3. 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. 14 Consequently, this Office has concluded that unsolicited commendation letters written by third parties—someone other than the employer—are personnel records subject to release. 15

4. 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. 16 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

14
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2025-003.
15
See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-225, 2006-176, 2003-153.
16
Nor can I determine whether releasing the other commendation letters is consistent with the FOIA.