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 custodian's decision to release Lively's personnel file with proposed redactions (covering timesheets, signed policy acknowledgments, Prison Rape Elimination Act questionnaires, advertisements for the position, employment forms, applications, and training certificates) is consistent with FOIA.
Plain-English summary
Corrections Major Steven Lively used the FOIA subject-side opinion procedure on a release of his personnel file. The custodian planned to release with redactions; Lively did not object generally but submitted the records for AG review.
The records are personnel records (not evaluation records), so the Young v. Rice balancing test applies. Most of the custodian's redactions are consistent with FOIA. The properly redacted items: home address, DOB, personal phone, personal email, AASIS personnel number, SSN, driver's license, payroll deductions, tax withholdings, net pay, and what appears to be a copy of his driver's license.
The AG flagged three problems.
First, inconsistent redaction of the AASIS personnel number. It was redacted in most places but appears unredacted on one Administrative Directive form titled "Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures" (numbered 19-12). It must be redacted there too, under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (personal identification numbers used for computer security).
Second, improper redaction of leave-accrual hours. The custodian redacted vacation and sick-leave hour totals on payroll records. AG opinions consistently treat vacation and sick-leave hours as presumptively releasable: their disclosure does not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (Ops. 2024-062, 93-041, 92-132). Unless there is some specific reason to redact (which the custodian must articulate), those hours should be released.
Third, undocumented redaction bases. The custodian made block redactions on PREA audit and questionnaire forms, plus nine fully blacked-out pages of payroll records. A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B) requires the custodian to identify the applicable exemption for each redaction. Without a stated exemption basis, those redactions are improper.
What this means for you
If you are a state HR administrator preparing a personnel-file release
Make redactions consistent across the entire file. If a piece of information is exempt and redacted in one place, it must be redacted everywhere it appears. Inconsistency is the most common technical defect in FOIA releases and is what triggers most subject-side challenges.
Default to releasing leave-accrual totals (vacation, sick leave, comp time). These are personnel records that consistently come out under Young v. Rice. If you have a specific reason to redact (e.g., the leave entry exposes a medical condition under § 25-19-105(b)(2)), document the basis explicitly.
When redacting, write down the statutory exemption you are relying on. Section 25-19-105(a)(3)(B) requires this. A redaction without a stated basis is presumptively improper.
If you are an employee whose file is being released
You can use the subject-side AG opinion process to flag inconsistencies (like the AASIS number appearing unredacted on one form) and unjustified over-redactions (like leave totals). The AG will not protect information that AG opinions consistently treat as public, but the AG will catch technical problems.
If you are a journalist requesting public-employee personnel files
You should generally get vacation, sick leave, and comp time hour totals. If a custodian redacts those, cite Op. 2024-062 (and this opinion) and ask the custodian to articulate the specific exemption basis. If they cannot, the redaction is improper.
Common questions
Q: Why are vacation and sick-leave hours public?
A: AG opinions treat them as personnel records that do not give rise to greater-than-minimal privacy interest. They are part of the structural compensation/leave package that the public has an interest in seeing.
Q: Why is the AASIS personnel number exempt?
A: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) exempts "personal identification numbers" used for computer security functions. AASIS numbers provide access to computerized HR data, so they fit the exemption (Op. 2022-032).
Q: What is "consistent" redaction?
A: If a piece of exempt information appears in multiple records, it must be redacted from each instance. A correctly-redacted SSN on page 5 of a 50-page release is undermined if the same SSN is visible on page 12.
Q: Why does § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B) require identifying the exemption?
A: Because "responsive records exist that are subject to exemptions, the custodian must identify the applicable exemptions." This lets the requester (and any reviewing court) understand the basis for withholding and challenge it if appropriate.
Q: Can a custodian redact something just because the employee asked them to?
A: No. The Young v. Rice test is objective; an employee's preference for non-disclosure does not change the analysis. Unless an exemption applies based on the content, the record comes out.
Background and statutory framework
Personnel records are open under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) except where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Young v. Rice (1992) sets the two-step balancing test: more-than-minimal privacy interest at step one; public interest weighed at step two. Burden on the person resisting disclosure (Stilley v. McBride).
Statutory and AG-opinion redactions for personnel records: § 25-19-105(b)(13) (personal contact info), AG opinions for SSN, DOB, driver's license, marital status, family member names, banking, intimate financial detail, employee personnel numbers (under § 25-19-105(b)(11) when used for computer security), insurance coverage, tax withholdings, payroll deductions, net pay.
Vacation and sick-leave hours are consistently treated as releasable (Ops. 2024-062, 93-041, 92-132).
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B) requires the custodian to identify the applicable exemption when withholding or redacting.
Citations and references
Statutes: A.C.A. § 25-19-105.
Cases: Young v. Rice; Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; Stilley v. McBride; Thomas v. Hall; Davis v. Van Buren School District.
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
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).
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
[General-rules and personnel-records framework discussion. Personnel records open under § 25-19-105(b)(12) except where disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Young v. Rice balancing test, two steps. Stilley v. McBride: burden on the person resisting disclosure. Statutory redactions in (b)(2), (b)(11), (b)(13). AG-opinion redactions for SSN, DOB, driver's license, marital status, banking, etc.]
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.
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 hours generally does not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). 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