When a Prairie Grove police officer resigns instead of being fired, what parts of his personnel file (administrative records, performance evaluations, a written reprimand, and IA investigative records) can the public see under FOIA?

Plain-English summary

A Prairie Grove police records custodian planned to release a former officer's file. The Attorney General divided it into four groups. Administrative records were personnel records and could be released with specific redactions. Performance evaluations and a 2018 written reprimand were evaluation records that should be withheld. Investigative records could be released if the custodian determines the officer resigned in the face of certain, impending termination and the remaining disclosure conditions are satisfied.

A resignation can count as a constructive termination for this FOIA test, but the Attorney General did not decide that fact. The chief's description strongly suggested it, yet the custodian must make the finding. Even then, evaluation records require administrative finality, a connection to the suspension or termination decision, and a compelling public interest. The opinion found the old performance reviews unrelated to the potential termination. For the investigative records, it understood that they formed the basis for the proposed termination, subject to the facts. The Attorney General said the custodian could reasonably find a compelling public interest; that determination also rests on the surrounding circumstances.

What this means for you

If you are the records custodian

Separate administrative personnel records from employer-created evaluation records. Review each administrative record for information needing redaction, including the specific birth, address, contact, family, and identification details listed in the opinion. Check that redacted text cannot still be read through the marker. For the investigative records, decide whether resignation was forced by certain, impending termination, whether the proceeding is final, whether these records formed the basis for the decision, and whether the surrounding facts show a compelling public interest.

If you are the former employee

Resigning before formal dismissal does not by itself settle disclosure. The custodian must decide whether the resignation amounted to constructive termination. The opinion withheld the performance reviews because they did not appear to support that decision and withheld the written reprimand because it did not lead to suspension or termination.

If you request the file

Expect different decisions for different documents. You may receive administrative records with required redactions. Ask the custodian to apply the four-part evaluation-record test separately to investigative material, performance reviews, and reprimands.

Common questions

Does resignation automatically make an internal affairs file public? No. The custodian must find certain, impending termination and assess administrative finality, relevance, and compelling public interest.

Why were the performance reviews withheld?
They did not appear to form the basis for the potential constructive termination, so the relevance condition was not met.

Why was the written reprimand withheld?
The 2018 letter imposed a reprimand and warned of later discipline; the employee was not suspended or terminated based on its contents.

Were all phone numbers redacted?
No. The opinion says personal contact information of a nonelected public employee in employer records may be withheld. Private-sector job references' phone numbers are not exempt on that basis.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) governs personnel-record privacy. A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) sets the evaluation-record release conditions: suspension or termination, administrative finality, relevance, and compelling public interest. Under the Attorney General's constructive-termination approach, a resignation offered in the face of certain, impending termination can satisfy the first condition. The opinion leaves that factual decision to the custodian.

Source

• Official opinion search: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/ (Opinion No. 2025-049; PDF consulted for full text and footnotes).

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2025-049

June 23, 2025

Chief Chris Workman
Prairie Grove Police Department
Post Office Box 1033
Prairie Grove, Arkansas 72753

Dear Chief Workman:

You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request, which is made on behalf of the custodian of 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.

You report that someone requested a copy of a former police officer’s personnel file from the Prairie Grove Police Department. The custodian identified certain employee records as responsive to this request, and the custodian intends to disclose all of those records. You ask whether the custodian’s decisions are consistent with the FOIA.

You have provided copies of the following employee records for my review:1

• Administrative records. These include the “Code of Ethics”; “Employee Pay Record”; training certificates; a résumé; a “Physical Training Form”; emergency contact information; a birth certificate; a Hepatitis B shot notice; a “Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty” military; a copy of a driver’s license; a “Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training Initial Employment Report”;2 a “Line-of-Duty Death Information” form; a 2018 “Annual Leave” spreadsheet; an Office of Alcohol testing “Operator Card”; a high school diploma; a signed “Employee Statement”; a signed checklist of issued and returned items; copies of candidate interview evaluation forms; “Receipt for Policy and Procedure

1
The records include both redacted and unredacted copies.
2
This includes two copies, one completed by only the applicant and the other completed by both the applicant and the employer, with a fax coversheet attached.

Chief Chris Workman
Prairie Grove Police Department
Opinion No. 2025-049
Page 2

Manual”; a signed background-check form for employment; a “Firearms Information Form”; a “Uniform Size Form”; a new hire check list; a request and response for applicant fingerprinting; a letter of resignation; completed applicant exam questions; an employment application; an “Application for Training”; officer notes concerning a December 2, 2006 incident; and an “Employment Questionnaire.”

• Employee performance evaluations. These concern multiple “Performance Evaluation” records.3

• Written reprimand. This concerns a March 4, 2018 reprimand letter.

• Investigative documents. These concern notes on investigating the performance of the employee; a spreadsheet of incoming and outgoing phone calls; and a “[R]esignation Highlights” page reviewing the performance of the former employee.

The subject of the records objects to the release of certain records concerning text messages because he “was not disciplined on that and he resigned.”

RESPONSE

The Prairie Grove Police Department’s custodian of records has determined that the records should be released with certain redactions. The custodian’s decision to release the records is partially correct under the FOIA: while the custodian may properly release the administrative records subject to redactions, the custodian should withhold from release the written reprimand and performance evaluations. And if the custodian determines that the former employee resigned in the face of “certain, impending termination,” the investigatory records should be disclosed.

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.4 Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.5 Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.6

3
Some of these records only include page “1 of 2,” lacking the second page.
4
Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
5
Id.
6
Id.

Chief Chris Workman
Prairie Grove Police Department
Opinion No. 2025-049
Page 3

The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to the Prairie Grove Police Department, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA.7 And the records at issue appear to be public records.8 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records,9 although that presumption is rebuttable.10 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 files11 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. Administrative records. In my opinion, the administrative records are best categorized
   as “personnel records,” and the custodian’s decision to disclose the administrative records is consistent with the FOIA’s treatment of “personnel records.” Public records are “personnel records” when (1) they pertain to an individual employee, as each document within the set of administrative records does; and (2) they are not an employee-evaluation or job-performance record—created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee.12 Although each administrative record appears to have been created by the

7
See, e.g., A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (including “a public official or employee” or “a governmental agency”).
8
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). 9 Id.
10
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)). 11 “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). 12 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 1999-147; Watkins et al., The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act 202 (6th ed. 2017).

Chief Chris Workman
Prairie Grove Police Department
Opinion No. 2025-049
Page 4

employer, these records do not provide details or specifics concerning the former employee’s performance or lack of performance as a law-enforcement officer. So the documents that make up the set of administrative records are best classified as “personnel records.”

Personnel records are open to public inspection except “to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”13 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.14 The balancing test, which takes place with a thumb on the scale in favor of disclosure, has two steps.15

First, the custodian must assess whether the information contained in the requested record is of such a personal or intimate nature that it gives rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest.16 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.17

This office has consistently opined that the following are personnel records subject to disclosure under the FOIA: interview scores of a successful job applicant;18 documents that confirm someone’s employment;19 dates of hire;20 birth certificates in the personnel files of public employees;21 general education background, including schools attended and

13
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
14
308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
15
Watkins et al., supra note 11, at 208.
16
Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
17
Id.
18
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-096, 96-142.
19
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 97-063, 97-063.
20
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-103, 95-256.
21
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2001-373, 97-177.

Chief Chris Workman
Prairie Grove Police Department
Opinion No. 2025-049
Page 5

degrees received;22 training and certifications;23 employment contracts;24 employee names,25 salaries,26 payroll records;27 and general resignation letters.28 Therefore, the custodian’s decision to release these administrative records as “personnel records” is consistent with the FOIA.

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 (including personal phone numbers, email addresses, and home addresses),29 employee personnel numbers or identification codes;30 marital status of public employees;31 dates of birth of public employees;32 social security numbers;33 driver’s license numbers;34 insurance coverage;35 tax information or withholdings;36

22
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-124, 2015-034, 2008-082, 2006-176.
23
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2002-252 (training), 2006-165 (educational background), 96-256 (certifications).
24
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 93-337.
25
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-156.
26
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2002-159.
27
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2008-129, 94-198.
28
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2020-056, 2012-144, 2012-019, 2006-216, 2002-320, 99-119, 95-162.
29
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
30
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070. Public employee personnel numbers are exempt from disclosure because “these numbers presumably provide access to computerized data, and records containing “personal identification numbers” used for computer security functions are specifically exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.” Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2022-032; see also A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11). 31 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
32
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
33
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
34
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
35
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-167.
36
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385.

Chief Chris Workman
Prairie Grove Police Department
Opinion No. 2025-049
Page 6

payroll deductions;37 names of children, spouses, and ex-spouses;38 net pay;39 banking information;40 and other financial “records that would divulge intimate financial detail.”41

On the birth certificate, the former employee’s date of birth and names of his parents are not redacted, but they should be.42 Additionally, the following information is not currently redacted from the records but should be: what appears to be the former employee’s home address and phone number on the City of Lowell “Authorization to Release Information” form; the former employee’s address, date of birth, and mother’s name on the “Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty”; the former employee’s date of birth on the driver’s license; the former employee’s date of birth on the “Commission of Law Enforcement Standards and Training Initial Employment Report”; the name of a spouse on the “Emergency Contact Information” form; the “Contact Phone Number” on both copies of the “Commission of Law Enforcement Standards and Training Initial Employment Report,” to the extent that it is a personal phone number of the former public employee;43 the marital status, spouse’s name, child’s name, and mother’s name on “Line-of-Duty Death Information”; the former employee’s driver’s license number, date of birth, and home address on the “Employment Application”; and the former employee’s date of birth and home address on the “Application for Training.”

The phone numbers of job references listed on either a résumé or job application are subject to disclosure under the FOIA and cannot be redacted.44 If a job reference is a nonelected public employee, and their personal contact information is “contained in employer records,”45 then such personal contact information should be redacted. But if the job reference is employed in the private sector, his or her personal contact information—such as addresses and telephone numbers—is not exempt from disclosure.46 Thus, to the extent

37
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 98-126.
38
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237.
39
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-064, 2018-015, 2002-043, 98-126.
40
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
41
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422.
42
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2011-081, 2008-053.
43
This phone number appears to be partially redacted.
44
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-129, 2005-131, 2001-368, 2001-080.
45
See A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
46
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-129, 2015-008, 2010-070, 2005-131.

Chief Chris Workman
Prairie Grove Police Department
Opinion No. 2025-049
Page 7

that the phone numbers of job references listed are employed in the private sector, such numbers should not be redacted.

Several of the redactions made on various records were done with a marker in such a way that allows one to still see the “redacted” information. The custodian will want to review all redactions to ensure that the redacted information cannot still be seen.

3. Employee performance evaluations. 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.47 The employee performance evaluations here meet those requirements and must be withheld 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.48
   

The first question, then, is whether the former employee was suspended or terminated. The former employee was not suspended, and he resigned from the position before he could be terminated. But this office has consistently held that if a resignation is forced—i.e., if it is offered in the face of “certain, impending termination”—then it qualifies as a “constructive termination” that meets the first element for the disclosure of evaluation records. 49 Your email states, “All of this documentation and the messaging led us to the point we [were] going to terminate [the officer], but he resigned when we brought him in so he was not officially disciplined.” Your email strongly suggests that the former officer resigned in the face of “certain, impending termination,” so the first element is likely met. But I am not a factfinder when issuing opinions. It is up to the custodian to make this determination.

47
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, and 93-055. 48 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).
49
See generally Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-045, 2023-077, 2012-019, 2011-084.

Chief Chris Workman
Prairie Grove Police Department
Opinion No. 2025-049
Page 8

If the custodian determines that the former employee’s resignation was voluntary, then the evaluation records must be withheld from release because the first element of the test has not been met. But if the custodian determines that the resignation amounted to a constructive termination, the custodian proceeds to the second element of the test: determining whether the suspension or termination is final. Because the former officer left the Prairie Grove Police Department in late 2019, it does not appear that there are any pending appeals, and the second element of the test would be met.

With respect to the third element, relevance, these evaluation records do not appear to have formed the basis for what was potentially a constructive termination. Therefore, it is my opinion that these performance review records are not subject to release because this third element has not been met.

4. Written reprimand. Among the documents you have provided for my review is a
   March 4, 2018 written reprimand signed by a supervisor. This office has consistently opined that employee-evaluation and job-performance records include “written reprimands
   … [and] letters of caution.”50 That is the case here. Therefore, this written reprimand cannot be released unless all the following elements have been met: suspension or termination; administrative finality; relevance; and compelling interest.

The written reprimand does not meet the requirements of disclosure because the employee was not suspended or terminated based on the contents of the letter. Although this letter provides reasons for the reprimand, it does not reflect adverse employment action that goes beyond just a written warning: “You are hereby given a written reprimand” but “further violations will result in further disciplinary action.” Therefore, the March 4, 2018 written reprimand should not be disclosed under the FOIA.

5. Investigative records. As this office has consistently concluded, records in an internal
   affairs file that have been generated at the behest of the employer while investigating a complaint against an employee (evaluating the employee and detailing performance or lack of performance on the job) constitute employee-evaluation or job-performance records.51 Thus, because the letter, notes, and phone call spreadsheet were generated by or at the behest of the employer in the course of investigating complaints, they are best classified as employee-evaluation or job-performance records. These employee-evaluation or job- performance records cannot be released unless the four previously discussed elements for disclosure have been met.

As explained above in the section regarding employee performance evaluations, if the custodian determines that the former officer resigned in the face of “certain, impending termination,” the officer’s resignation would be considered a constructive termination, and

50
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2009-146, 2008-135, 1997-261, 1993-105, 1992-231, 1991-324.
51
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-311; see also Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-178.

Chief Chris Workman
Prairie Grove Police Department
Opinion No. 2025-049
Page 9

the first element would be met. Likewise, because the former officer left Prairie Grove Police Department in 2019, the second element of the test, finality, would also be met.

With respect to the third element, relevance, it is my understanding that the investigative records generated while investigating the employee formed the basis for the employer’s decision to terminate him. If this is the case, the third element of the test would be met as well.

The final element of the test for release of an employee-evaluation record is whether the public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the record. The existence of a “compelling public interest” in disclosure necessarily depends on all the surrounding facts and circumstances, and I am not equipped or authorized to undertake such a factual inquiry. But this office has consistently opined that law-enforcement officers are invested with a significant public trust, so there is usually a compelling public interest in records, such as these, that reflect violations of office policy.52 Consequently, I believe that the custodian could reasonably determinate that the compelling public interest element of this test has been met.

In sum, if the custodian determines that the former officer was constructively terminated from his employment with the Prairie Grove Police Department, the investigative records that formed the basis for the Department’s decision to terminate him should be disclosed.

Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

52
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2023-071, 2023-013, 2014-129, 2006-026.