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?

Subject

Whether the Department of Corrections' proposed redactions to a community supervision officer's personnel records, including information about her job references, are consistent with Arkansas FOIA.

Plain-English summary

The records custodian planned to release Thelma Delancey's personnel records with redactions. Delancey objected to releasing her references' contact information. The AG found the records properly classified as personnel records and most proposed redactions proper, but identified two more items to redact: her answer to Question 5 on a December 5, 2007 Parole/Probation Officer Questionnaire and her school transcript.

The AG could not tell what a redacted “position number” represented. If it was the job position number, it was disclosable; if it was the employee's personnel number, it was exempt. He also questioned redaction of a listed work phone number: work numbers generally are not exempt, unless this number was actually personal or otherwise exempt. The custodian must identify the exemption supporting a redaction when responsive records are subject to exemptions.

For job references, the AG distinguished public employees from private-sector references. A reference's personal contact information should be redacted if the reference was or is a public employee. The AG found no basis here to redact the personal contact information of references in the private sector and noted earlier opinions generally treat applicants' references' addresses and phone numbers in nonexempt public records as disclosable.

What this means for you

Public employees and job references

The AG approved most redactions proposed for this personnel file and called for two more. He did not accept an automatic redaction of references' contact information: their status as public employees matters under the provision he applied. His view concerns these records and does not decide the treatment of every reference in every file.

Records custodians

The uncertain “position number” and “Work Phone” entries require checking what each number actually is before deciding whether to redact it. Where an exemption applies to responsive records, the custodian must identify it under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B).

Common questions

Q: What additional information did the AG say to redact?
A: The response to Question 5 on the 2007 Parole/Probation Officer Questionnaire and the school transcript.

Q: Is a work phone number exempt?
A: Work numbers generally are not. The AG saw no basis for this redaction unless the listed number was actually personal or otherwise exempt.

Q: Can a custodian redact a job reference's contact information?
A: The AG said personal contact information should be redacted if the reference was or is a public employee. He found no basis here for redacting private-sector references' personal contact information.

Q: Did the AG say his opinion binds the custodian?
A: The opinion reviews whether the planned release is consistent with FOIA. It directs the custodian to identify exemptions supporting redactions but does not state that the AG's review is binding.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applies the personnel-record privacy test under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), the public-employee personal-contact exemption under § 25-19-105(b)(13), and the requirement in § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B) to identify applicable exemptions. It distinguishes a job position number from an employee personnel number because the latter may be used for computer security.

Citations and references

• Statutes: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B), (b)(11), (b)(12), (b)(13).
• Cases: 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

• Official opinion search: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

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

   Thelma Delancey
   Opinion No. 2026-037
   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 Thelma Delancey Opinion No. 2026-037 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).
Thelma Delancey
Opinion No. 2026-037
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 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, 2007.31 The second is your school transcript.32

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.33 But if it refers

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. 2021-090, 2015-003 (opining that “information about marital status and family life” must be redacted under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12)’s “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” standard). 32 See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-025, 2009-032.
33
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2021-018.
Thelma Delancey
Opinion No. 2026-037
Page 5

to your employee personnel number, that information is not subject to release.34 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,35 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.36 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.37

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

Sincerely,
~
/;tt?.~
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

34
See A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (exempting from disclosure “[r]ecords containing measures, procedures, instructions, or related data used to cause a computer or a computer system or network, including telecommunication networks or applications thereon, to perform security functions, including ... personal identification numbers....”). 35 A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
36
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-023, 2015-034 (citing A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13)).
37
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-145, 2016-129, 2010-070.