Does an Arkansas city have to release records showing how much comp time its employees have accrued, and can a city council member make that FOIA request?

Plain-English summary

A Cotter city council member requested records showing comp time accrued by city employees through September 2025. The city clerk withheld them as personnel records on privacy grounds. The AG agreed that comp-time records are personnel records, but concluded they are generally subject to release under Arkansas FOIA. Based on the information supplied, he knew of no other exemption barring disclosure. He said information about an employee's illness or medical condition must be redacted, along with any other exempt details appearing in an otherwise releasable record.

The AG compared comp time with salary, payroll, overtime, sick-leave, and vacation records. Personnel records may be withheld only to the extent release would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. He said comp-time records should be disclosed under that test, even though no earlier AG opinion or state court had applied it specifically to comp time. The custodian need not create a new record containing only the requested information.

A city council member may request nonexempt records under FOIA in the same capacity as any other Arkansas citizen. The AG separately said it is unclear whether a council member's office allows access to FOIA-exempt records. He knew of no law authorizing an individual council member to inspect personnel records exempt under the privacy test on the facts supplied. He declined a detailed federal-law analysis.

What this means for you

If you handle a city comp-time request

Treat existing comp-time records as personnel records generally open to inspection. Review the actual records for medical information and other exempt details, such as personal contact information or employee identification numbers, and redact those details as required. The opinion does not require the city to compile a new comp-time report if one does not already exist.

If you are a council member seeking records

You may request nonexempt city records through FOIA as an Arkansas citizen. That access does not establish a special right to confidential personnel material. The AG said the law on access by virtue of office is unclear and identified no authority allowing an individual council member to see records exempt under the privacy balancing test in this situation.

Common questions

Are comp-time balances automatically confidential because they concern employees?

No. The AG classified comp-time records as personnel records but concluded they are generally releasable under the personnel-record privacy test. He distinguished the comp-time information from medical or other exempt details that might appear in the same record.

Can the city remove medical information before release?

Yes. The AG specifically said information reflecting an employee's illness or medical condition must be redacted. He also listed other personal and financial details that may require redaction if present.

Does a council member have broader FOIA rights than another citizen?

The AG said a council member can use FOIA as a citizen. He did not identify a special FOIA right to exempt records. He left unresolved whether some authority outside FOIA could allow access by virtue of office.

Does this opinion decide whether a city ordinance can make comp time confidential?

No. It does not analyze a city ordinance. The AG said no Arkansas employment-law provision independently exempts comp-time balances on the facts presented.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(1) permits Arkansas citizens to request public records. A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) exempts personnel records only to the extent disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The opinion applies the Young v. Rice balancing test to comp-time records. It also notes separate exemptions or redactions for medical information and particular personal identifiers. On council-member access, it distinguishes ordinary FOIA access from any possible authority an officer might have outside FOIA, which it did not find for the individual council member here.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (FOIA exemptions)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-103 (definitions)
• A.C.A. §§ 21-1-501 to -503 (Public Employees Political Freedom Act)
• Ark. Const. art. 19, § 3; art. 3, § 1; A.C.A. § 14-43-309 (city council qualifications)

Cases:

• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992) (balancing test)
• Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007) (presumption of public-record status)
• Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987) (three-element FOIA test)

Source

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

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2025-108

February 5, 2026

The Honorable Jason Nazarenko
State Representative
Post Office Box 192
Cotter, Arkansas 72626

Dear Representative Nazarenko:

I am writing in response to your request for my opinion concerning whether a city must release certain “comp time” records to a city council member.1

You report that a city council member “requested all the comp time accrued by city employees through September 2025” and that the city clerk denied the request under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) based on “privacy concerns,” asserting that the records were “personnel records.” In response, the city council member cited to the FOIA in “declaring that her request was not for protected information.” She also claimed that the “City Council was part of the governing municipality rather than simply part of the public.”

In light of the above, you ask four questions:

1. Is comp time classified as exempt under pertinent employment law?

2. Can comp time accrued by city employees be released and disclosed to a government official or the public?

Brief response: To answer Questions 1 and 2 together, comp time accrued by city employees is best classified as a “personnel record” generally subject to release under the FOIA. Based on the information provided, I am not aware of any other FOIA exemption that would prevent disclosure. But if

1
For purposes of this opinion, I will assume that “comp time” means “compensatory time”—a type of paid time off that employees can earn while employed. See Compensatory time, The American Heritage Dictionary 376 (5th ed. 2011).

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201

The Honorable Jason Nazarenko
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-108
Page 2

the records contain information reflecting an employee’s illness or medical condition, that information must be redacted before release.

3. Is the City Council part of a municipality or the public at large?

Brief response: Since Arkansans citizens may send FOIA requests, and since Arkansas city council members are Arkansas citizens, such council members may use the FOIA.

4. Is the City Clerk’s decision to withhold certain employee information consistent with state and federal law?2

Brief response: With respect to state law, please see my response to your first two questions. A detailed analysis of federal law is outside the scope of an Attorney General opinion.

DISCUSSION

Question 1: Is comp time classified as exempt under pertinent employment law?

Question 2: Can comp time accrued by city employees be released and disclosed to a government official or the public?

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 custodian is not required to compile information into a new record containing only the requested information.6

2
As written, your fourth question asks, “Is the City Clerk’s decision to withhold certain employee information state and federal law? I assume you mean to ask whether the clerk’s decision is consistent with state and federal law, so I have rewritten your question accordingly. 3 Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
A.C.A. 25-19-105(d)(2)(C) (“A custodian is not required to compile information or create a record in response to a request made under this section.”); Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-058.

The Honorable Jason Nazarenko
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-108
Page 3

The first two elements appear to be met here. The request for records was made to a city, 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, so I will 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 them 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. Personnel records. The custodian correctly classified the comp time records of city employees
   as “personnel records.” This category includes salary and payroll records, pension and benefit records, and records of sick leave and vacation time.12

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

7
See, e.g., A.C.A. § 25-19-103(13)(B) (including “municipalities” as “public entities” subject to the FOIA).
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(15)(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 E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-020, 2024-062, 92-132.
13
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).

The Honorable Jason Nazarenko
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-108
Page 4

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 because they do not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the above balancing test: information concerning salary, wages, or compensation;18 vacation time and sick leave;19 and overtime compensation,20 including “number of overtime hours worked.”21 While no Attorney General opinion or state court has applied the personnel records balancing test specifically to “comp time” records,22 it is my opinion that such records are subject to release like those records concerning compensation, overtime, and vacation time.

You have also asked whether comp time is “exempt under pertinent employment law.” No Arkansas employment-law provision independently exempts comp time records from disclosure. Although some federal employment laws, like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, contain various confidentiality requirements applicable to employers, none of them require that comp time balances be kept confidential.

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. 2025-007 (compensation), 2009-204 (wages), 2008-129, 2008-050 (salary).
19
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-062, 93-041, 92-132.
20
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2008-050.
21
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-057.
22
But see Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2013-080 (addressing a specific objection raised by the subject of personnel records while not expressly analyzing the “comp time” included in the records to be released).

The Honorable Jason Nazarenko
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-108
Page 5

Based on the information submitted with your request, I am not aware of another exemption under the FOIA either. But if the records contain information reflecting an employee’s illness or medical condition, that information must be redacted before release.23

Additionally, a record that meets the test for release under the FOIA may still contain pieces of information that must be redacted, such as personal contact information of public employees;24 employee personnel numbers or identification codes;25 marital status of public employees;26 dates of birth of public employees;27 social security numbers;28 driver’s license numbers;29 insurance coverage;30 tax information or withholdings;31 payroll deductions;32 names of children, spouses, and ex-spouses;33 net pay;34 banking information;35 and other financial “records that would divulge intimate financial detail.”36

Question 3: Is the City Council part of a municipality or the public at large?

I understand this question as asking whether a city council member or the city council as a whole may make FOIA requests in the same capacity as the “public.” Under the FOIA, “any citizen of

23
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-062, 2017-121, 2016-031, 2012-136; see also A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(2) (exempting records that include specific medical information about the employee that concerns the treatment or diagnosis of medical condition). 24 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
25
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). 26 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
27
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
28
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
29
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
30
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-167.
31
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385.
32
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 98-126.
33
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237.
34
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-064, 2018-015, 2002-043, 98-126.
35
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
36
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422.

The Honorable Jason Nazarenko
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-108
Page 6

the State of Arkansas” may make a request for access to records.37 A member of a city council in Arkansas must be a qualified elector and resident in the area he or she represents.38 Therefore, city council members retain their authority to request records under the FOIA. Thus, if the requested public records are not exempt from release, a city council member may request those records in the same capacity as any other Arkansas citizen.

Additionally, under the Public Employees Political Freedom Act, a city also cannot prohibit, discipline, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against a public employee for making a FOIA request in his or her capacity as a citizen.39

But whether a city council member—by virtue of his or her position—may access FOIA-exempt records held by a particular city department is unclear. The FOIA does not expressly address such a scenario.40 Outside of the FOIA, a particular officer may be authorized to access exempt records by statute, “subpoena power, or otherwise in the course of their official duties.”41 Based on the information provided, I am not aware of any law that would authorize an individual city council member to review personnel records that are exempt from release under the balancing test.42

Question 4: Is the City Clerk’s decision to withhold certain employee information consistent with state and federal law?

With respect to state law, please see my response to your first two questions. A detailed analysis of federal law is outside the scope of an Attorney General opinion.43

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

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

37
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(1).
38
Ark. Const. art. 19, § 3; Ark. Const. art. 3, § 1; A.C.A. § 14-43-309.
39
A.C.A. §§ 21-1-501 to -503.
40
See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2015-056.
41
Watkins et al., supra note 11, at 100.
42
See also A.C.A. §§ 14-43-502 (providing that a city council as a whole has “the management and control of finances” in cities of the first class), 14-43-504 (providing that the mayor of a city of the first class is the “chief executive officer” who must “[s]upervise the conduct of all the officers of the city”). 43 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-010, 2008-112, 2005-170, 2003-094.