When the Department of Corrections releases a corrections major's personnel file (timesheets, signed policies, PREA forms, employment records, training certificates), what redactions are required and which are improper?

Subject

Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections' proposed release of Steven Lively's personnel records, with redactions, was consistent with FOIA.

Plain-English summary

Corrections Major Steven Lively asked the Attorney General to review proposed redactions to his timesheets, policy acknowledgements, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) questionnaires, employment forms, application, and training certificates. The Attorney General classified the records as personnel records and found the proposed release mostly consistent with FOIA.

He approved redactions of Lively's home address, birth date, personal telephone number and email address, personnel number, Social Security number, driver's license number, payroll deductions, tax withholdings, and net pay. Some blocks appeared to hide a copy of a driver's license; if that was their content, the redaction was consistent with FOIA.

Three points needed follow-up. First, an AASIS personnel number remained visible on Administrative Directive 19-12, “Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures,” and had to be redacted. Second, hours under “Leave Accrual” appeared improperly withheld. The opinion says vacation and sick leave hours generally do not create a clearly unwarranted privacy invasion, so those redactions should be removed unless another reason supports them. Third, the Attorney General could not tell why blocks on PREA forms and nine entirely blacked-out payroll pages were withheld. He required the custodian to identify applicable exemptions; he did not rule that those particular blocks lacked a valid ground.

What this means for you

If you prepare a personnel file for release

Check repeated identifiers across the file. The AASIS number was redacted in most places but missed on one form. Review accrued leave hours separately from protected payroll details: this opinion says the hours generally should be released unless another basis for redaction applies. For large blocks and fully withheld pages, identify the exemption relied on instead of leaving the reason unclear.

If your file is requested

The opinion shows that a personnel record can be released while discrete details remain redacted. It also shows that the Attorney General may question both a missing protection, such as an exposed personnel number, and an unexplained withholding, such as accrued leave hours or entire pages.

If you request personnel records

The Attorney General expected vacation and sick leave hours to be available absent another reason for redaction. He did not order release of the PREA blocks or nine payroll pages without further review; he required the custodian to explain their exemption basis.

Common questions

Q: Why was the AASIS number supposed to be redacted everywhere? A: The opinion says public employee personnel numbers may provide access to computerized data and cites A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11). It identified one visible occurrence on Administrative Directive 19-12 that the custodian missed.

Q: Are accrued vacation and sick leave hours public?
A: The opinion says their release generally does not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. It directed removal of the redactions unless the custodian had another reason to withhold those hours.

Q: Were the PREA and payroll-page redactions invalid?
A: The Attorney General did not decide that. He said their bases were unclear and the custodian had to identify applicable exemptions for responsive records withheld on an exemption ground.

Q: Did the opinion approve every other redaction?
A: No. It said most redactions complied with FOIA and specifically discussed the listed personal and financial details. It left the unclear blocks for further explanation.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) allows withholding personnel-record information to the extent disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The opinion relies on Young v. Rice for the privacy balancing framework and cites § 25-19-105(b)(11) and (b)(13) for certain identifiers and contact information. It cites prior AG opinions finding accrued vacation and sick leave hours generally releasable. Under § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B), a custodian must identify the exemptions applicable to withheld responsive records.

Citations and references

• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B), (b)(11)–(13), cited in the opinion's redaction discussion.
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992), cited in the privacy discussion.
• Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-062, 93-041, and 92-132 on leave hours, opinion footnote 32.

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2026-013

January 27, 2026

Mr. Steven Lively
Corrections Major
Arkansas Department of Corrections

Dear Mr. Lively:

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 I received from the records custodian, the Department of Corrections received a FOIA request for your personnel records. The custodian has provided copies of the records she intends to release with redactions. These records include your timesheets, signed policy acknowledgements, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) questionnaires, advertisements for your position, employment forms, application for your position, and training certificates. You ask if the custodian’s decision to release these records is consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

In my opinion, the custodian’s decision to release the records is mostly consistent with the FOIA. The records are properly classified as personnel records, and most of the redactions comply with the Act. However, one additional redaction is required, and the justification for several redactions is unclear. The custodian must identify the bases for these redactions when releasing the records.

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
   

Steven Lively
Opinion No. 2026-013
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 Arkansas Department of Corrections, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA. And the records at issue appear to be public records. 4 Because these records are held by a public entity, they are presumed to be public records, 5 although that presumption is rebuttable. 6 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.” 7 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. 8 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. 9

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

1
Legis. Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 91, 722 S.W.2d 581, 582 (1987).
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
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). 5 Id.
6
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)). 7 “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). 8 See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 99-147.
9
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, 7–8, 572 S.W.3d 466, 471 (noting that “[o]ur supreme court has approved” the definition of employee-evaluation

Steven Lively
Opinion No. 2026-013
Page 3

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. Because the records at issue are personnel records, I will limit my analysis to that type of record.

2. Personnel records. A personnel record is open to public inspection except “to the extent that
   disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 10 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. 11 The balancing test, which takes place “with the scale tipped in favor of public access,” has two steps. 12

First, the custodian must assess whether the information contained in the requested document is of a personal or intimate nature such that it gives rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest. 13 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. 14

Because the exceptions must be narrowly construed, the person resisting disclosure bears the burden of showing that, under the circumstances, the employee’s privacy interests outweigh the public’s interests. 15 The fact that the subject of the records may consider release of the records an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy is irrelevant to the analysis because the test is objective. 16

Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it may contain pieces of information that must be redacted, 17 such as personal contact information of public employees (including personal phone numbers, email addresses, and home addresses); 18 employee

records developed by the Attorney General’s Office); Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-057, 2009-067, 2006-038, 2003- 073, 95-351, 93-055. 10 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12).
11
308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).
12
Watkins et al., supra note 7, at 208.
13
Young, 308 Ark. at 598, 826 S.W.2d at 255.
14
Id.
15
Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 (1998).
16
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-055, 2001-112, 2001-028, 94-198; Watkins et al., supra note 7, at 207.
17
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(f).
18
Id. § 25-19-105(b)(13).

Steven Lively
Opinion No. 2026-013
Page 4

personnel numbers or identification codes; 19 marital status of public employees; 20 information about children and dependents; 21 dates of birth of public employees; 22 social security numbers; 23 driver’s license numbers; 24 insurance coverage; 25 tax information or withholdings; 26 payroll deductions; 27 net pay; 28 banking information; 29 and other financial “records that would divulge intimate financial detail.” 30

3. Application. The custodian has properly redacted the following information from your
   personnel records: your home address, date of birth, personal telephone number, personal email address, personnel number, social security number, driver’s license number, payroll deductions, tax withholdings, and net pay. There are also several blocks of redactions that appear to cover a photocopy of your driver’s license, which—if that is in fact what is being redacted—is consistent with the FOIA. 31

Although most instances of your employee identification number (also referred to as your “personnel number” or “AASIS number”) have been properly redacted, I noted one instance where it remains visible. On an Administrative Directive form titled “Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures” and numbered “19-12,” your AASIS number appears unredacted but should be redacted.

Additionally, the hours listed under “Leave Accrual” on your payroll records appear to have been improperly redacted. This Office has consistently held that the release of vacation and sick leave

19
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). 20 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
21
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-084, 2018-083, 2001-080.
22
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
23
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
24
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
25
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-167.
26
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385.
27
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 98-126.
28
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-064, 2018-015, 2002-043, 98-126.
29
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
30
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422.
31
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-145, 2006-165.

Steven Lively
Opinion No. 2026-013
Page 5

hours generally does not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). 32 Unless there is some other reason for redacting your accrued hours, those redactions should be removed.

Finally, there are a few instances where the bases for the redactions are not clear. These include blocks of redactions on the PREA audit and questionnaire forms, as well as nine fully blacked-out pages of payroll records. Under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B), if responsive records exist that are subject to exemptions, the custodian must identify the applicable exemptions.

Deputy Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

32
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-062, 93-041, 92-132.