When a community supervision officer's personnel file gets a FOIA request, can the employer release it with redactions, and can private-sector references' contact information be redacted along with everything else?
Plain-English summary
Thelma Delancey, a Community Supervision Officer III with the Arkansas Department of Corrections, was the subject of a FOIA request for her personnel records. The Department's custodian provided her with copies showing the redactions she planned to make before release. Delancey objected to the release of her references' contact information and asked the AG whether the custodian's overall decisions were consistent with FOIA.
AG Tim Griffin's review took the records as personnel records (under the standard two-track FOIA test that distinguishes between "personnel records" and "employee-evaluation or job-performance records") and ran through the standard redaction list:
Properly redacted by the custodian:
- Home address, date of birth
- Personal telephone number, personal email address
- Personnel number (computer-security PIN exemption under § 25-19-105(b)(11))
- Social security number, driver's license number
- Payroll deductions, tax withholdings
- Banking information
Two items the AG required to be redacted:
- The response to Question 5 on the December 5, 2007 Parole/Probation Officer Questionnaire, which involved information about marital status and family life
- The school transcript
Two clarifications:
- "Position number" had been redacted but the basis was unclear. If "position number" referred to the job position number, it must be released. If it referred to the employee personnel number (a security identifier), it stays redacted. The custodian needed to identify which.
- "Work Phone" had been redacted but work phone numbers generally are not exempt. Unless the listed work phone was actually a personal phone, redaction was not justified. The custodian had to identify any applicable exemption under § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B).
On the references:
- If the references were public employees, their personal contact information must be redacted under § 25-19-105(b)(13).
- If the references were private-sector employees, their personal contact information is not exempt and should not be redacted. Prior AG opinions had consistently held that addresses and telephone numbers of a job applicant's references in the private sector are generally not exempt when contained in a non-exempt public record.
What this means for you
If you are a state corrections employee whose personnel file is getting a FOIA request, the custodian must release the file but must redact a long list of personal items. You should review the proposed redactions carefully. The AG's office will check whether redactions are properly justified and consistent. If the custodian has under-redacted (missed something on the list) or over-redacted (blacked out something that should be public), you can request an AG opinion under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).
If you provided references for a public-sector job and wonder whether your contact info gets released, the answer depends on whether you yourself are a public employee. Public-employee references get personal-contact-info redaction. Private-sector references generally do not: your name, business or home phone, and address may be released. If you provided your home phone or personal email as a private-sector reference, that information is potentially disclosable. Future references should think carefully about which contact information they share.
If you are a custodian processing a FOIA request for personnel records, the AG's framework is mechanical: classify the records as personnel records (or employee evaluation records, which face a stricter test). For personnel records, apply the standard redaction list. For each redaction, identify the applicable exemption under § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B). Be specific about whether a "position number" is the public job number (release) or the personnel security number (redact). Don't redact work phone numbers unless they're actually personal. Treat references differently based on whether they are in the public or private sector.
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas FOIA at Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-101 et seq. distinguishes between two types of employee-related records:
- "Personnel records" are records pertaining to an individual employee that were not created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. They get released subject to the personal-privacy exemption at § 25-19-105(b)(12) and the categorical contact-info exemption at § 25-19-105(b)(13).
- "Employee evaluation or job-performance records" are records (1) created by or at the employer's behest, (2) to evaluate the employee, (3) detailing performance or lack of performance. They face a stricter test under § 25-19-105(c)(1).
The Arkansas Supreme Court's Young v. Rice (1992) balancing test applies to personnel records: first, whether the information is of a personal or intimate nature giving rise to a greater than minimal privacy interest; second, if so, whether that privacy interest is outweighed by the public's interest in disclosure. The scale is tipped toward disclosure.
Decades of AG opinions have built up a categorical redaction list for personnel records: home addresses, dates of birth, personal phone numbers and email addresses, personnel/employee ID numbers (under the computer-security exemption at § 25-19-105(b)(11)), marital status of public employees, names of dependents, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, insurance coverage, tax information and withholdings, payroll deductions, net pay, banking information, and "intimate financial detail."
The references rule comes from § 25-19-105(b)(13), which exempts personal contact information of public employees. By implication, the contact information of references who are not public employees is not categorically exempt.
Common questions
Q: Why does the AG distinguish between personnel records and evaluation records?
A: Because Arkansas FOIA gives them different disclosure rules. Personnel records are released subject to the Young v. Rice balancing test and a redaction list. Evaluation records are released only when the employee has been suspended without pay or terminated for policy violation, the records relate to that violation, and there is a "compelling public interest" in disclosure (Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1)).
Q: What gets redacted from a corrections officer's personnel file?
A: The standard list: home address, date of birth, personal phone, personal email, personnel/employee ID number, social security number, driver's license number, payroll deductions, tax withholdings, banking information, marital status, names of children, health insurance details, and any "intimate financial detail." This particular opinion added the response to a 2007 Parole/Probation Officer Questionnaire question about family life and a school transcript.
Q: Why can private-sector references' contact information be released but not public-sector references'?
A: Because § 25-19-105(b)(13) protects personal contact information of public employees specifically. The legislature made a categorical judgment that public employees should not have their personal contact info released through someone else's personnel file. There's no parallel statutory protection for private-sector individuals' contact information when it appears as a reference in a public personnel record. The AG has consistently held that absent some other exemption, the private-sector references' personal contact information remains disclosable.
Q: Is a work phone number redactable?
A: Generally no. The opinion clarified that work phone numbers are not categorically exempt. Unless a number listed as a work phone is actually a personal number (which can happen with employees who use a personal cell for work), it should be released. If the custodian has a basis for treating it as personal, that basis must be identified under § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B).
Q: What's the difference between a "position number" and a "personnel number"?
A: A position number is the public-facing job classification number for the role itself, akin to a job-grade identifier. A personnel number (or employee number) is a unique identifier for the individual employee that is typically used for payroll, system access, or identification. Personnel numbers are exempt under § 25-19-105(b)(11) because they often double as computer-security access codes. Position numbers are public.
Q: Can the custodian add new redactions after the AG opinion?
A: Yes. The AG's review is for consistency with FOIA. If the AG identifies additional items that should be redacted, the custodian must redact those before release. The AG's review is binding on the custodian to that extent.
Citations and references
Arkansas statutes:
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(15)(A)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(11), (12), (13)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(f)
Arkansas 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
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
- Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998)
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-037
April 27, 2026
Ms. Thelma Delancey
Community Supervision Officer III
Arkansas Department of Corrections
Dear Ms. Delancey:
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 application for employment, employment forms, signed policy acknowledgements, application for promotion, educational records, Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) questionnaires, and payroll forms. You ask if the custodian's decision to release these records is consistent with the FOIA, and you object to the release of your references' contact information.
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, two additional redactions are required, and the justification for some of the redactions is unclear. The custodian must identify the bases for these redactions when releasing the records. To the extent that a job reference is employed in the private sector, his or her information is not exempt from release and should not be redacted.
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 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 Arkansas Department of Corrections, which is a public entity subject to the FOIA. And the records at issue appear to be public records.
For purposes of the FOIA, employees' personnel files normally contain two distinct groups of records: "personnel records" and "employee-evaluation or job-performance records." 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. 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.
The test for whether these two types of documents may be released differs significantly. 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." A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12). The Arkansas Supreme Court in Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992), applied a balancing test that weighs the public's interest in accessing the records against the individual's interest in keeping them private. The balancing test, which takes place "with the scale tipped in favor of public access," has two steps.
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. 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.
Even if a document, when considered as a whole, meets the test for disclosure, it 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; information about children and dependents; dates of birth of public employees; social security numbers; driver's license numbers; insurance coverage; tax information or withholdings; payroll deductions; net pay; banking information; and other financial "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."
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 banking information. However, I have identified two additional items that should be redacted before the records are released. The first appears in your response to Question 5 on the Parole/Probation Officer Questionnaire, dated December 5, 2007. The second is your school transcript.
There are also a few instances in which the bases for the redactions are unclear. The custodian has redacted your "position number" from the records, but I am uncertain as to what this number refers. If this number refers to the job position number, that information is disclosable. But if it refers to your employee personnel number, that information is not subject to release. The custodian also appears to have redacted your "Work Phone" on page 10 of the PDF titled, "Application Position Info." Although your personal contact information is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, work phone numbers generally are not. Unless the number listed as your work phone is actually your personal phone number or is otherwise exempt, I see no basis for redacting this information. Under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B), when responsive records are subject to exemptions, the custodian must identify the applicable exemptions.
Finally, regarding your request to redact the contact information of your references, if these people were or are public employees, then their personal contact information should be redacted. Otherwise, there is no basis, in my opinion, for redacting their personal contact information. This Office has previously opined that the addresses and telephone numbers of a job applicant's references are generally not exempt from disclosure when contained in a nonexempt public record.
Deputy Attorney General Kelly Summerside prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General