Is a redacted spreadsheet that lists multiple Conway Police Department employees alongside disciplinary dispositions, but doesn't summarize each employee's misconduct, a personnel record or an evaluation record under FOIA, and can the public see it?
Subject
Whether the Conway Police Department records custodian's decision to release a multi-employee disciplinary spreadsheet (with redactions) is consistent with the Arkansas FOIA.
Plain-English summary
George Riemer requested any public records relating to "[his] dismissal for cause from the Conway Police Department." The custodian found one responsive document: a single-page spreadsheet listing multiple employees' names alongside dispositions, "likely linked to disciplinary investigations." The custodian redacted information about other employees and planned to release the rest. Riemer, as the subject, asked for AG review.
The AG had to first decide what kind of record this was. Two related but separate questions had to be answered. First, is the spreadsheet an "evaluation record" or a "personnel record"? Second, because it concerns multiple employees, does it qualify as a "mixed record" with mixed treatment?
On the first question: the AG concluded the spreadsheet is a personnel record, not an evaluation record. To be an evaluation record under Thomas v. Hall, a document must (1) be created by or at the behest of the employer (2) to evaluate the employee, and (3) detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job. The spreadsheet here lists names and dispositions, but it doesn't evaluate the employees, doesn't describe their conduct, and doesn't summarize the rationale for any disciplinary action. The AG distinguished this from prior cases (e.g., AGOp. 2023-081) where similar spreadsheets contained per-employee summaries of the reasons for discipline; those summaries are what made the earlier spreadsheets evaluation records.
On the mixed-record question: the spreadsheet relates to more than one employee, so it's a "mixed personnel record." When a single document is mixed across categories or across employees, the custodian applies the appropriate test to each portion of the record.
For personnel records, the test is the Young v. Rice balancing test. The AG ran it. There is nothing in this spreadsheet that "reveals the intimate details of a person's life," like marital status, paternity, medical conditions, or alcohol consumption. Without that kind of intimate content, the privacy interest is minimal. The record should be released.
The AG also flagged that the custodian's redactions of other employees' information were not explained, but said that whether those redactions are consistent with the FOIA is "outside the scope of this review."
What this means for you
Records custodians
Pay attention to the difference between (1) a spreadsheet that lists employees and dispositions only, and (2) a spreadsheet that lists employees, dispositions, AND a per-employee summary of the misconduct or rationale. The first is a personnel record. The second is an evaluation record. The release tests are very different.
For a personnel record under Young v. Rice, the question is whether disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Without intimate details, the answer is usually no, and the record is releasable. For an evaluation record, you need the four-part test (suspension/termination, finality, relevance, compelling interest), which is much harder to satisfy.
When you build internal disciplinary tracking, that distinction has design implications. If you keep a bare list of dispositions for legal-hold or audit purposes, that list is going to be releasable when FOIA'd. If you want to keep the underlying rationale private, keep it in separate, more detailed records that meet the evaluation-record criteria, not in a single spreadsheet that mixes both.
Police chiefs and city attorneys
This opinion gives you a useful FOIA-strategy data point. A summary spreadsheet of disciplinary dispositions across the department is a personnel record that you'll typically have to release. If you want to track that data and keep it confidential, you have to either (a) avoid creating it in the first place, or (b) build it as a per-incident set of evaluation records that include the substance of misconduct and the rationale, then live with the four-part test for release.
FOIA requesters
If a department refuses to release a multi-employee disciplinary list saying "it's an evaluation record," push back. Cite this opinion: a list of names and dispositions, without per-employee misconduct summaries, is a personnel record that should be released under Young v. Rice. The four-part test for evaluation records applies only to records that actually evaluate (with substance) and describe performance.
Mixed-record analysis generally
The mixed-record framework is broader than just multi-employee documents. A single record can be "mixed" if it contains both an employee's personnel information and another person's evaluation, or if it contains both personal and evaluative information about the same employee. The custodian applies the right test to each portion. AGOp. 2020-037 collected the prior opinions on mixed records.
Common questions
Q: I'm an employee on this kind of disposition spreadsheet. Can the public see my name and what happened to me?
If the spreadsheet is a bare disposition list (name + outcome, no narrative), yes, generally. The AG's analysis here would have it released. Your name and the bare disposition fact (suspended, dismissed, reprimanded) become public. What stays private is the underlying narrative of misconduct and the substance of the rationale, unless that's contained in a separate record that satisfies the four-part test.
Q: What's the dividing line between a "personnel record" spreadsheet and an "evaluation record" spreadsheet?
Whether the spreadsheet evaluates the employees and describes their performance. A column saying "Smith / 2-day suspension" is just a disposition list. A column saying "Smith / 2-day suspension / failed to complete required training despite multiple reminders" is an evaluation. The AG's test is qualitative. Look at whether the substance of the work performance is in the record.
Q: Why didn't the AG rule on whether the redactions of other employees' info were correct?
Because Riemer's request for review under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) concerned the custodian's decision regarding HIS records. Other employees' redactions are a different question that those employees would need to raise. The AG kept his analysis to the scope of the review request.
Q: I have a record that's both my personnel info and contains evaluations of other employees. What test applies?
Both. The custodian applies the personnel-record test (Young v. Rice balancing) to the personnel-record portions, and the four-part test to the evaluation-record portions. The custodian then redacts what fails its applicable test and releases what passes. AGOp. 2020-037 walks through the approach.
Q: Could a future spreadsheet with more detail still be a personnel record?
Probably not, if it crosses into describing the employee's actual conduct or job performance. The AG was clear: the dividing line is description and evaluation. Once a document tells a reader what the employee did or how they performed, it becomes evaluative and gets the harder release test. Bare dispositional facts don't.
Background and statutory framework
Under A.C.A. § 25-19-105, public employee records split into personnel records (subsection (b)(12)) and evaluation/job-performance records (subsection (c)(1)). The classification controls the release test.
Personnel records: open to inspection except where disclosure is a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Young v. Rice applies the two-step balancing: greater-than-minimal privacy interest, then weigh against public interest with a thumb on the scale for disclosure.
Evaluation records: subject to the four-part test (suspension/termination, finality, relevance, compelling public interest).
Mixed records: a record that combines categories or covers multiple employees. The custodian applies the appropriate test to each portion. AGOp. 2020-037 is the lead opinion. The Conway PD spreadsheet is mixed because it covers multiple employees.
The classification analysis under Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387, requires three elements for a record to qualify as an evaluation record: (1) created by or at the behest of the employer; (2) to evaluate the employee; (3) detailing the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job. A spreadsheet that doesn't actually evaluate (no description of conduct or rationale) fails element (2) or (3) regardless of whether the employer created it.
The privacy-interest analysis under Young v. Rice asks whether the information has a personal or intimate nature giving rise to a greater than de minimis privacy interest. The AG cited the recurring intimate-detail examples: marital status, paternity, medical conditions, alcohol consumption. A bare disposition list doesn't contain those.
Compare AGOp. 2023-081 (and opinions cited therein), where a similar spreadsheet was an evaluation record because the spreadsheet contained per-employee summaries of disciplinary action rationale. The Conway PD spreadsheet differs in lacking such summaries.
Citations
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (definition of public record)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records / clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (four-part test for evaluation records)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (subject's right to AG review)
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511
- 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
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
Source
Original opinion text
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2025-047
June 20, 2025
George Riemer
Email: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Riemer:
You have requested an opinion from this Office 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 subdivision authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of certain employee-related records to seek an opinion stating whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the FOIA.
According to correspondence our office received from the custodian, the Conway Police Department received a FOIA request for any public records related to "[your] dismissal for cause from the Conway Police Department." The custodian identified one record responsive to this request and determined that it was subject to release, with certain redactions. You have requested that I review the custodian's decision to determine whether it is consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
In my opinion, the custodian's decision to release the record is consistent with the FOIA.
DISCUSSION
- 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.
The first two elements appear to be met. The request was made to the Conway Police Department, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA. And the record at issue appears to be a public record. Because this record is held by a public entity, it is presumed to be public record, although that presumption is rebuttable. Given that I have no information to suggest that the presumption can be rebutted here, I will focus on whether any exemptions prevent the document's disclosure.
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. Thus, 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.
- Personnel records. 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. A personnel record is open to public inspection except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 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. The balancing test, which takes place "with the scale tipped in favor of public access," has two steps. 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 de minimis privacy interest. If the privacy interest is minimal, then the records should be disclosed. Second, if the information does give rise to a greater than de minimis privacy interest, then the custodian must determine whether that privacy interest is outweighed by the public's interest in disclosure.
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 interest. The fact that the subject of the records may consider release of the records an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is objective.
Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain pieces of information that must be redacted, such as personal contact information of public employees; employee personnel numbers or identification codes; marital status of public employees; information about children and dependents; dates of birth of public employees; social security numbers; driver's license numbers; insurance coverage; tax information or withholdings; payroll deductions; net pay; and banking information.
- 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.
If a document qualifies as an employee-evaluation record, the document cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met:
- The employee was suspended or terminated (i.e., level of discipline);
- There has been a final administrative resolution of the suspension or termination proceeding (i.e., finality);
- The records in question formed a basis for the decision made in that proceeding to suspend or terminate the employee (i.e., relevance); and
- The public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the records in question (i.e., compelling interest).
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.
-
Mixed records. Some employee-related records are "mixed records." Which means they are (1) more than one person's evaluation, (2) at least one person's evaluation and at least one other person's personnel record, or (3) more than one person's personnel record. When a portion of a record is mixed, the custodian should apply the applicable tests for disclosure to that portion of the record.
-
Classification and disclosure of the record. The only record submitted for my review is one page and is heavily redacted. An unredacted copy was also provided to this office. The custodian did not state how he classified the record but indicated that he intended to release the record as redacted. After reviewing the record, it is my opinion that it is a mixed record because it contains your personnel record and the personnel records of other employees.
The record consists of a spreadsheet listing multiple employees' names alongside dispositions, likely linked to disciplinary investigations. Critically, it does not evaluate any employees or describe their job performance. Therefore, it fails to satisfy the definition of an employee evaluation articulated in Thomas v. Hall. However, it qualifies as a personnel record since it relates to employees and was not created by or at the employer's behest to evaluate those employees. It is also a mixed personnel record because it pertains to more than one employee. While similar spreadsheets our office has examined have been considered employee evaluations, those contained a summary of the reasons behind the disciplinary actions for each individual, which is absent in this record. Consequently, this record is a personnel record and should be disclosed unless doing so would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Applying the balancing test articulated in Young, there is nothing in the record that "reveals the intimate details of a person's life," such as "marital status, paternity, medical conditions, and alcoholic consumption" that would indicate there is a substantial personal privacy interest at stake. The subjects of the record only have a minimal privacy interest related to the information contained in the record. Therefore, the record should be released.
Information related to other employees has been redacted by the custodian. The custodian did not provide a rationale for those redactions, but whether those redactions are consistent with the FOIA is outside the scope of this review.
Assistant Attorney General Justin Hughes prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General