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
The Fountain Lake School District received a FOIA request for "all concerns, complaints, and reports for all coaches for the last 5 years." The custodian (Assistant Superintendent Stephen Campbell) identified responsive emails and intended to release them with redactions, then asked the AG to confirm.
The AG splits the answer into two categories of records:
1. Unsolicited emails from third parties (parents, community members) about coaches.
These are "personnel records" under FOIA, not "employee-evaluation records." The distinction is whether the record was created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. A complaint or commendation from a parent, by definition, was not. So they are subject to release under the personnel-records balancing test in A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). The AG approves the custodian's decision to release them with appropriate redactions for items like personal contact information of public employees, employee personnel ID numbers, marital status, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, names of children/spouses/ex-spouses, banking information, and intimate financial details.
2. The December 24, 2021 email from Michael Murphy.
This one is different. Murphy appears to have been the coach's supervisor. His email was created by the employer; to evaluate the coach; and it details the coach's performance or lack of performance on the job. That makes it an employee-evaluation or job-performance record. Those records have a much stricter release test under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1):
- The employee was suspended or terminated;
- The suspension or termination is administratively final;
- The record formed a basis for the suspension/termination decision; and
- The public has a compelling interest in disclosure.
If even one element fails, the record stays withheld. Here, the coach was not suspended or terminated based on this evaluation, so the first element fails, and the email must be withheld.
Important practical points:
- An unsolicited complaint does not become an evaluation record just because the school district later investigates it. The complaint itself was not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee, even if it triggers an evaluation later.
- "Mixed records" exist (a single document containing both personnel and evaluation content). For mixed records, apply the appropriate test to each portion.
- Several names and email addresses in the released emails were redacted by the custodian without explanation. Personal contact information of private-sector individuals is generally not exempt; if the redactions rest on a different exemption (educational records under (b)(2) or constitutional privacy), the AG cannot opine on those because they are outside the scope of (c)(3) review.
What this means for you
If you are a school district administrator or records custodian
The categorical line is "created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee." Apply it document-by-document:
- Parent complaint email about Coach X: personnel record, release with redactions.
- Parent commendation email about Coach X: personnel record, release with redactions.
- Coach X's annual evaluation written by the athletic director: employee-evaluation record, withhold unless all four release elements are met.
- Email from athletic director to principal evaluating how the coach handled a parent complaint: employee-evaluation record, withhold unless all four elements are met.
- Investigation file the district opened after receiving a parent complaint: mixed; the original complaint stays a personnel record; investigation findings created by the district to evaluate the coach are employee-evaluation records.
Standard redactions for releasable personnel records: personal contact information, employee ID numbers, marital status, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, names of children and spouses, banking information, intimate financial details.
If you are a parent who has emailed the school about a coach
Your unsolicited email becomes a personnel record subject to release if someone files a FOIA request. The school will redact your personal contact information (and probably your child's name), but the substance of your complaint is releasable. Consider whether you want your complaint to potentially appear in a future records release before sending.
If you are a school board member or athletic director
Internal evaluations of coaches stay confidential under FOIA unless the coach is suspended or terminated and the evaluation was the basis for the decision and the public has a compelling interest in disclosure. That is a high bar. Routine performance evaluations, mid-year coaching reviews, and supervisor critiques that do not lead to suspension or termination remain confidential.
If you are a journalist or FOIA requester
Two-track strategy works best. Request "all unsolicited complaints and commendations" (personnel records, mostly releasable). Separately request "all employee-evaluation records that formed the basis for any suspension or termination of [coach name] that is administratively final." The second category is narrower but stronger when it applies.
If you are a coach concerned about your records being released
Anything a parent or community member sent unsolicited is potentially releasable as a personnel record. Internal evaluations by your supervisor or athletic director stay confidential unless you are suspended or terminated. If you are concerned about specific records, ask your district's records custodian to walk you through what would and would not be released.
Common questions
What is the difference between a personnel record and an employee-evaluation record?
A personnel record is a record about an individual employee that was not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. An employee-evaluation or job-performance record is one that (1) was created by or at the behest of the employer; (2) to evaluate the employee; and (3) details the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job. Thomas v. Hall (2012) is the controlling case.
Why is an unsolicited parent complaint a personnel record and not an evaluation record?
Because the parent did not create the complaint at the behest of the employer for the purpose of evaluating the coach. The complaint was generated independently. Even if the district later opens an investigation based on the complaint, the original complaint remains a personnel record.
What if the district forwards the complaint to the supervisor and asks for a response?
The original complaint stays a personnel record. The supervisor's response, if it evaluates the coach's performance, is an employee-evaluation record. Apply the tests separately.
What can be redacted from a releasable personnel record?
The AG lists, citing prior opinions: personal contact information of public employees (A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13)), employee personnel numbers, marital status, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, names of children/spouses/ex-spouses, banking information, and other "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."
What about the coach's home address or birthday?
Both should be redacted from any released personnel record. Personal contact information is exempt under (b)(13); dates of birth are exempt under prior AG opinions (Op. 2007-064).
What about names of complaining parents and their children's names?
The custodian had redacted some names and email addresses without explanation. The AG notes that personal contact information for private-sector individuals is generally not exempt, but other exemptions (educational records under (b)(2), federal constitutional privacy) might justify the redactions. The custodian needs to identify the specific basis.
Does the public ever get access to internal evaluations of a coach?
Only if all four conditions in § 25-19-105(c)(1) are met: suspension or termination, administrative finality, the evaluation formed a basis for the decision, and a compelling public interest. If the coach resigns before being formally suspended or terminated, the evaluation typically stays confidential.
Background and statutory framework
A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (FOIA disclosure rules). Three elements for any document to be released: (1) request directed to a FOIA-covered entity, (2) the document is a public record, (3) no exemption applies. School districts are FOIA entities.
(b)(12) personnel records exemption. Personnel records are open except to the extent disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." This triggers the Young v. Rice balancing test (greater-than-de-minimis privacy interest, weighed against public interest, scale tipped toward access).
(b)(13) personal contact information exemption. Categorical exemption for personal contact information of nonelected state, municipal, school, or county employees.
(c)(1) employee-evaluation/job-performance records release test. All four elements must be met:
- Suspension or termination of the employee;
- Administrative finality (no remaining administrative review);
- The record formed a basis for the suspension or termination decision;
- A compelling public interest in disclosure.
Definition of employee-evaluation record (Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66; Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466). Three-part test: (1) created by or at the behest of the employer; (2) to evaluate the employee; (3) detailing performance or lack of performance.
Unsolicited third-party communications. AG Opinions 2001-123, 2000-166, 98-130, 98-001, 96-257 establish that unsolicited complaints are personnel records, not transformed into evaluation records by virtue of any subsequent investigation.
Standard redactions. Personal contact information ((b)(13)), employee ID numbers (Op. 2022-032; A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11)), marital status (Op. 2001-080), dates of birth (Op. 2007-064), social security numbers (Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153), driver's license numbers (Op. 2007-025), names of children/spouses/ex-spouses (Ops. 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237), banking info (Op. 2005-194), intimate financial detail (Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422).
Mixed records. AG Opinion 2020-037 establishes that "mixed records" combining personnel and evaluation content require part-by-part application of the appropriate test.
Scope of (c)(3) review. The AG can opine on personnel and evaluation record decisions. Other exemptions (educational records under (b)(2), federal constitutional privacy) are outside (c)(3) review and the AG cannot opine on them.
Citations
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 25-19-103 (FOIA definitions; public record definition as amended by Act 505 of 2025)
- A.C.A. § 25-19-105 (exemptions; (b)(12) personnel; (b)(13) personal contact; (c)(1) evaluation release; (c)(3) AG review)
Cases:
- Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987)
- Pulaski Cnty. 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
- Davis v. Van Buren Sch. Dist., 2019 Ark. App. 466, 572 S.W.3d 466
Other AG opinions:
- 2001-123, 2000-166, 98-130, 98-001, 96-257 (unsolicited complaints)
- 2025-003 (employee-evaluation criteria)
- 2025-113 (private-sector contact information; the Conway commissioners opinion)
- 2020-037 (mixed records)
- 2022-032, 2014-094, 2007-070 (employee personnel numbers)
- 2001-080 (marital status)
- 2007-064 (dates of birth)
- 2006-035, 2003-153 (social security numbers)
- 2007-025 (driver's license numbers)
- 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237 (names of children/spouses)
- 2005-194 (banking info, intimate financial detail)
- 2023-065 (federal constitutional privacy multi-part test)
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
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
- 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. Second, the requested document must constitute a public record. Third, the document must not be subject to an exemption.
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. And the records at issue appear to be public records. 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, 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 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. 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.
-
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 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.
-
Unsolicited complaints and commendations. An unsolicited email complaint, generated by a third party unaffiliated with the employer, 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. 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. 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); employee personnel numbers or identification codes; marital status of public employees; dates of birth of public employees; social security numbers; driver's license numbers; names of children, spouses, and ex-spouses; banking information; and other financial "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."
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. 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 privacy, 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).
- 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. 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.
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