A school district got a FOIA request for all complaints about coaches over five years. Which emails are personnel records (releasable) and which are evaluation records (mostly withheld)?

Plain-English summary

Fountain Lake School District received a FOIA request for “all concerns, complaints, and reports for all coaches for the last 5 years.” The records custodian planned to release responsive emails with redactions and sought the Attorney General's review. The Attorney General found that plan partly correct: unsolicited emails from members of the public could be released as personnel records, but a December 24, 2021 email response from Michael Murphy had to be withheld as an employee-evaluation or job-performance record.

The key distinction is who created the record and why. An unsolicited complaint or commendation from someone unaffiliated with the employer was not created by or at the employer's request to evaluate the employee. A later investigation does not turn the original complaint into an evaluation record. Murphy's response, by contrast, appeared to come from the coach's supervisor and to assess the coach's job performance.

Personnel records that may be released can still contain information requiring redaction. The opinion lists examples including public employees' personal contact information, personnel numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, banking information, and intimate financial details. But the custodian had also redacted some names and email addresses without explaining why. The Attorney General said private-sector individuals' personal contact information is generally not exempt. He could not decide whether another asserted ground, such as the educational-records exemption or federal constitutional privacy, supported those redactions because that question lay outside this review.

Murphy's email faced the separate four-part disclosure test for evaluation records: suspension or termination, administrative finality, a record forming a basis for that action, and a compelling public interest. Because the employee was not suspended or terminated based on this evaluation, the first condition was unmet and the email had to be withheld.

What this means for you

If you handle a school district's FOIA request

Identify each record's origin and purpose before deciding whether the personnel-record or evaluation-record test applies. The opinion treats unsolicited public comments as personnel records even if a later investigation follows. For a mixed record, apply the relevant disclosure test to each portion. Explain each proposed redaction; the Attorney General did not approve unexplained redactions of names and email addresses in the records he reviewed.

If you submitted a complaint about a coach

An unsolicited email may be disclosed as a personnel record. Do not assume that the district will remove your name or email address: this opinion says private-sector contact information is generally not exempt and leaves possible other exemption grounds unresolved.

If you seek school employee records

The opinion gives you a way to distinguish public complaints from an employer's evaluation. The former were releasable here as personnel records, subject to supported redactions. The latter had to be withheld here because the required suspension-or-termination condition was not met.

Common questions

Q: Does a later investigation turn an unsolicited complaint into an evaluation record? A: No. The opinion says a third party's original unsolicited complaint remains a personnel record despite a later investigation. Any separate record must be classified on its own terms.

Q: Why was Michael Murphy's December 24 email withheld?
A: It appeared to have been created by the coach's supervisor to evaluate the coach's job performance. The opinion says the coach was not suspended or terminated based on the evaluation, so the first condition for releasing an evaluation record failed.

Q: Will a school district redact a complaining parent's name and email address? A: This opinion did not approve those redactions. It says the basis for some name and email redactions was unclear and that private-sector contact information is generally not exempt. The Attorney General left possible other exemption grounds outside his review.

Q: How should the custodian handle a document containing several employees' records? A: The opinion describes such a document as a possible mixed record. The custodian should apply the relevant disclosure test to each portion.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applies Arkansas FOIA's separate treatment of personnel records and employee-evaluation or job-performance records. It cites A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) for the four conditions governing release of evaluation records and § 25-19-105(b)(13) for public employees' personal contact information. It cites Thomas v. Hall and Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist. for the definition of evaluation records, along with prior AG opinions on unsolicited complaints and redactions. Its review under § 25-19-105(c) did not extend to deciding whether educational-records or federal constitutional privacy grounds justified the unexplained name and email redactions.

Citations and references

• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1), opinion footnote 25; § 25-19-105(b)(13), footnote 13.
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66, 399 S.W.3d 387, and Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466, opinion footnote 24.
• Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2020-037 on mixed records, opinion footnote 9; prior opinions on unsolicited complaints, footnotes 10–12.

Source

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

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 2025-121

November 25, 2025

Stephen C. Campbell, Assistant Superintendent
Fountain Lake School District
4207 Park Avenue
Hot Springs, Arkansas 71901

Dear Mr. Campbell:

You have requested an opinion from this Office regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Your request, which is made as 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 from the Fountain Lake School District “all concerns, complaints, and reports for all coaches for the last 5 years.” You identified multiple emails from members of the public to school administrators concerning Fountain Lake School District coaches as responsive to this request. You intend to disclose all of those records with redactions. You have provided redacted and unredacted copies of the emails for my review, and you ask whether your decisions are consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

Your decision to release the emails with redactions is partially correct under the FOIA. The December 24, 2021 email response from Michael Murphy must be withheld from release as an employee-evaluation or job-performance record, but the release of the remaining emails as personnel records 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

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

Mr. Stephen C. Campbell
Opinion No. 2025-121
Page 2

FOIA.1 Second, the requested document must constitute a public record.2 Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.3

The first two elements appear to be met here. The request was made to the Fountain Lake School District, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA.4 And the records at issue appear to be public records.5 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records,6 although that presumption is rebuttable.7 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 files8 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. Mixed records. Some employee-related records are “mixed records” because they are (1) more
   than one person’s evaluation, (2) at least one person’s evaluation and at least one person’s

1
Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
See, e.g., A.C.A. § 25-19-103(14)(A), as amended by Act 505 of 2025, § 1 (including “a public official or employee”); Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-060 (opining that “[a]ll public entities … are subject to the FOIA”). 5 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(14)(A), as amended by Act 505 of 2025, § 1. 6 Id.
7
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)). 8 “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).

Mr. Stephen C. Campbell
Opinion No. 2025-121
Page 3

personnel record, or (3) more than one person’s personnel record.9 When a portion of a record is mixed, the custodian should apply the applicable tests for disclosure to that portion of the record.

3. Unsolicited complaints and commendations. An unsolicited email complaint—generated by
   a third party unaffiliated with the employer10—about a public employee is a personnel record. The complaint is not transformed into an employee-evaluation or job-performance record by virtue of any subsequent investigation.11 Likewise, emails from the public praising a public employee are personnel records subject to release. In both instances, unsolicited emails made by a third party 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.12 Thus, the decision to release all emails concerning unsolicited remarks by third parties as personnel records is consistent with the FOIA—except for the December 24, 2021 email discussed below.

A personnel record subject to release, however, 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);13 employee personnel numbers or identification codes;14 marital status of public employees;15 dates of birth of public employees;16 social security numbers;17 driver’s license numbers;18 names of children, spouses, and ex-spouses;19 banking information;20 and other financial “records that would divulge intimate financial detail.”21

9
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2020-037.
10
See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-123.
11
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2001-123, 2000-166, 98-130, 98-001, 96-257.
12
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2025-003.
13
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
14
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). 15 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
16
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
17
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
18
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
19
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237.
20
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
21
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422.

Mr. Stephen C. Campbell
Opinion No. 2025-121
Page 4

Several names and email addresses contained in the provided emails have been redacted. The basis for those redactions is unclear. Generally, personal contact information for someone employed in the private sector is not exempt from disclosure.22 If those names and email addresses, however, have been redacted under another exemption—such as educational records under A.C.A.
§ 25-19-105(b)(2) or a federal constitutional right of privacy23—I cannot opine on whether those decisions are consistent with the FOIA because that is outside the scope of my review under A.C.A.
§ 25-19-105(c).

4. December 24, 2021 email. The December 24, 2021 email response from Michael Murphy, who
   appears to have supervised the coach in question, is best classified as an employee-evaluation or job-performance record because it was made by the coach’s employer; to evaluate the employee; and it details the employee’s performance or lack of performance on the job.24 Thus, that particular email 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.25
   

Because the employee was not suspended or terminated based on the contents of this evaluation, the first element is not met, and the email should be withheld from release under the FOIA.

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

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
22
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2025-113.
23
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2023-065 (discussing the multi-part test for the federal constitutional privacy exemption).
24
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. 25 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1).