I'm a police officer who was terminated and now my termination letter has been requested under FOIA. Can the city actually release that letter?
Plain-English summary
The City of Cabot received a FOIA request for the termination letter of Officer Phillip Ballard. The records custodian classified the letter as an employee-evaluation record and decided to release it. Officer Ballard, the subject of the record, objected and asked the AG to review whether release was consistent with the FOIA.
The AG concluded the release is consistent. Two findings drove that result.
First, the termination letter is correctly classified as an employee-evaluation record. The AG and Arkansas courts have long held that termination letters which state the reasons for termination are evaluation records. Letters that state only the bare fact of termination without reasons are personnel records instead, but Officer Ballard's letter recounted the specific reasons, so the evaluation classification applies.
Second, all four elements of the section 25-19-105(c)(1) release test are met. Element one (suspension or termination) is met because the officer was terminated. Element two (administrative finality) is met because the termination is not subject to administrative reversal or modification. Element three (relevance, that the record formed a basis for the discipline) is met because a termination letter that recites the reasons for the termination forms the basis for it. Element four (compelling public interest) is met because law enforcement officers hold a significant public trust, and the letter reflects multiple policy violations, ethical violations, and violations of the public trust, which the AG has consistently found to satisfy element four.
So the city can release the letter. Officer Ballard's objection does not change the analysis because the privacy and disclosure tests are objective.
What this means for you
If you are an Arkansas police officer who has been terminated
Your termination letter is likely going to be releasable under the FOIA if (a) you were terminated, (b) the discipline is final and not on appeal, and (c) the letter contains the reasons for termination. The fourth element (compelling public interest) is usually satisfied for law enforcement records that reflect policy or ethical violations because of the substantial public-trust interest in policing.
If you want to keep the letter sealed, you need to identify a flaw in one of those four elements. For instance: an active appeal can defeat element two. A termination letter that does not recite reasons (just says "you are terminated effective X") may be reclassified as a personnel record, where a different test applies. But the kind of detailed, reasons-included letter at issue here will almost always be releasable.
If you are a records custodian for a city or county
For a termination letter, run through the four elements explicitly: termination yes, finality yes, relevance yes (if the letter states the reasons), compelling public interest yes (especially for law enforcement, where the AG has a consistent line of opinions). Document each element in your release decision so the file shows you applied the test rather than assumed the answer.
If the subject of the records appeals the discipline before you respond to the FOIA request, element two flips. The discipline is no longer administratively final because it can be reversed on appeal. Hold release until the appeal resolves.
If you are a journalist or member of the public requesting the letter
This opinion is exactly what you want to point to when a city resists release. Cite the four elements. If the city's denial says "we do not release personnel matters," the AG's position is that the letter is not a personnel record, it is an evaluation record, and the personnel-record privacy test does not apply. The four-element test does, and for a terminated police officer with a reasons-included letter, it usually points toward release.
If you are a municipal attorney advising on a release
Three things to verify before approval: (1) the discipline is not under appeal in any forum that could reverse it; (2) the letter actually states reasons (skim it; do not assume); (3) the conduct described falls in or near the categories the AG treats as compelling public interest, especially for law enforcement.
Common questions
What's the difference between a termination letter that's an "evaluation record" and one that's a "personnel record"?
Reasons. A termination letter that recites the grounds for termination (the conduct, the policy violation, the performance failure) is an evaluation record. A termination letter that simply documents the fact of separation without reasons is a personnel record. The two carry different release tests under the FOIA.
Why does it matter which classification applies?
Personnel records use the Young v. Rice balancing test under section 25-19-105(b)(12). Evaluation records use the four-element test under section 25-19-105(c)(1). The four-element test is generally harder to satisfy (it requires both administrative finality and compelling public interest), but for a terminated employee with a reasons-included letter, it is often met.
What is "administrative finality"?
The discipline must be incapable of administrative reversal or modification. If the officer has the right to appeal the termination internally (to a civil service commission, a personnel review board, etc.) and that appeal is pending or still timely, the discipline is not yet final. Once all administrative appeals are exhausted or untimely, finality is met.
What makes the public's interest "compelling" enough?
The opinion notes the categories the AG has consistently treated as compelling: violation of public trust, illegal conduct, sexual misconduct or harassment, public safety, and gross incompetence. For police officers specifically, the AG has long held that records reflecting "multiple policy violations, ethical violations, and violations of the public trust" presumptively satisfy the compelling-interest element.
Can I as the subject of the records block release?
No. The privacy and disclosure tests are objective. Your subjective preference does not control. What you can do is challenge the classification (argue the letter is a personnel record, not an evaluation record) or one of the four elements (argue the discipline is not yet administratively final, for instance).
What about my privacy generally? Doesn't the FOIA protect employees?
The FOIA does protect employee personal contact information, SSNs, financial details, dates of birth, marital status, and similar pieces of intimate information, even within otherwise releasable records. Those discrete items are redacted. But the substantive content of a termination letter that explains the misconduct grounds is not redactable for an officer who has been finally disciplined.
What if my termination is reversed on appeal?
Element two of the four-element test fails (no administrative finality), so the letter would not be releasable while the appeal is pending or after a successful reversal. If the discipline is reduced rather than reversed, the analysis depends on whether what remains is still a "termination" or has become something else (a suspension, demotion). The AG would have to look at the modified discipline.
Background and statutory framework
Two-test split. Under Arkansas FOIA, employee records divide into personnel records (released under the section 25-19-105(b)(12) Young v. Rice balancing test) and employee-evaluation or job-performance records (released only when the four elements of section 25-19-105(c)(1) are met). The first task for any custodian is classification.
The Thomas v. Hall definition. The Arkansas Supreme Court approved the AG's definition of evaluation records: records (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. The Davis v. Van Buren School District opinion confirms that approved definition.
Termination letters with reasons. A long line of AG opinions (2024-021, 2014-052, 1995-171) holds that termination letters qualify as evaluation records when they contain the reasons for the termination. Conversely, letters without reasons are personnel records (see opinions 2013-155, 2006-147, 2002-150 cited in companion opinions).
The four elements for releasing an evaluation record. Under section 25-19-105(c)(1):
- The employee was suspended or terminated.
- There has been a final administrative resolution of the proceeding (administrative finality).
- The record formed a basis for the suspension/termination decision (relevance).
- The public has a compelling interest in disclosure.
All four must be met. A "no" on any element means the record stays sealed.
Compelling public interest for law enforcement. The AG consistently holds that "law-enforcement officers are invested with a significant public trust, so there is usually a compelling public interest in records … that reflect multiple policy violations, ethical violations, and violations of the public trust." Cited at footnote 14 with collected opinions: 2024-095, 2024-021, 2023-120, 2023-071, 2023-013, 2006-026.
Why the relevance element is met by the letter itself. AG opinions 2023-120, 2006-026, and 2005-030 establish that for a record to "form the basis" of a termination, it must either have been created prior to the termination or simply recite the reasons for the termination. A reasons-stating termination letter automatically satisfies element three by reciting the grounds.
Citations
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (definition of public records)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records balancing test)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (four-element evaluation-records release test)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG review authority)
Cases:
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2012 Ark. 180, 402 S.W.3d 511 (three-element FOIA framework)
- Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007) (rebutting public-record presumption)
- Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387 (definition of evaluation record)
- Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466 (approving AG definition of evaluation records)
Other AG opinions referenced:
- 2024-095, 2024-021, 2023-120, 2023-071, 2023-013, 2006-026 (compelling public interest in law enforcement disciplinary records)
- 2024-021, 2014-052, 1995-171 (termination letter as evaluation record when stating reasons)
- 2023-120, 2006-026, 2005-030 (relevance element met by reasons-included letter)
- 2023-120 (administrative finality)
- 2008-065 (general application of four-element test)
- 2024-095, 2023-120, 2020-028 (public-entity status of city subject to FOIA)
- 2015-072, 1999-147 (definition of personnel record)
- 2015-057, 2009-067, 2006-038, 2003-073, 95-351, 93-055 (definition of evaluation record, collected)
- 2005-095 (public-record definition jurisprudence)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2025-050
June 19, 2025
Officer Phillip Ballard
c/o City of Cabot
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Officer Ballard:
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 city attorney, the City of Cabot received a FOIA request for a "termination letter" addressed to you. The records custodian has provided me with an unredacted copy of the termination letter he intends to release. The custodian has classified the termination letter as an employee evaluation. You object to the release of the record, and you ask if the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA.
RESPONSE
In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified the termination letter as an employee evaluation. And because the four-part test for release of employee-evaluation records appears to be met, the custodian's decision to release the record is also 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 City of Cabot, a public entity subject to the FOIA. And the record at issue appears to be a public record. 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 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 distinct groups: "personnel records" and "employee evaluation or job performance 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. Employee evaluation and job-performance records, on the other hand, 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.
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.
- Classification and disclosure of the termination letter. In my opinion, the custodian has correctly classified the termination letter as an employee evaluation. This Office has consistently opined that a termination letter qualifies as an evaluation record when it states the grounds for the termination. Because the termination letter recounts the specific reasons for your termination, it qualifies as an employee-evaluation record.
Employee-evaluation records 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 four-part test for release of this employee-evaluation record appears to be met. You were terminated, and that termination is administratively final because it cannot be administratively reversed or modified. In addition, the termination letter is relevant to your termination because it recounts the reasons for your termination. Finally, the public has a compelling interest in the disclosure of the termination letter. As this office has consistently opined, law-enforcement officers are invested with a significant public trust, so there is usually a compelling public interest in records, like this one, that reflect multiple policy violations, ethical violations, and violations of the public trust. Therefore, the custodian's decision to release this record is consistent with the FOIA.
Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General