When a corrections department employee's personnel file gets a FOIA request, are administrative records, promotion letters, and demotion letters all releasable, and how should email addresses and references' contact information be handled?
Plain-English summary
Danielle Conner, an Administrative Coordinator with the Arkansas Division of Community Correction, was the subject of a FOIA request for her personnel file. The records custodian planned to release a long list of administrative records (employment forms, disclosure forms, applications, hire pack checklists, PREA questionnaires, leave records, policy acknowledgments, an Employee Master Data Form, and so on), plus an April 2016 promotion letter, an August 2016 demotion-request letter, and an email related to the demotion. Conner objected to the release and specifically asked about her references' contact information.
AG Tim Griffin's analysis ran in three parts:
1. Administrative records as personnel records. Each administrative record pertained to her individually but was not created by the employer specifically to evaluate her performance, so they fell on the "personnel records" side of FOIA's two-track test. Personnel records are open to inspection except where disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under § 25-19-105(b)(12), and a long list of items must always be redacted (home address, DOB, personal phone, personal email, social security number, driver's license number, etc.). Most of the custodian's planned redactions were proper.
2. The Employee Master Data Forms. Even though they listed salary, salary changes, and reasons for changes, they were administrative and did not contain evaluative content beyond labels like "Voluntary," "New Hire," and "Competitive." So they remained personnel records subject to release.
3. Promotion and demotion letters. Letters about promotions and demotions can sometimes be employee-evaluation/job-performance records, but the specific letters here did not evaluate Conner. The demotion was Conner's own request "due to not being able to complete the [Parole/Probation Basic Training] PPO Academy" for unstated health reasons. The corresponding email merely noted the demotion request to start the administrative process. The promotion letter referenced "completing the criteria established for a promotion" and contained generic encouragement ("keep up the good work"), but did not actually evaluate her. So all three records were personnel records subject to release.
Specific issues the AG flagged:
- Inconsistent driver's license redactions. The 2025 PREA questionnaire had her "Applicant DL or ID Number" unredacted, while the 2024 PREA questionnaire had it redacted. The custodian had to fix the inconsistency before release.
- Unexplained email address redactions. Some email addresses in the records had been redacted but the basis was unclear. Personal email addresses (not provided by the employer) must be redacted under § 25-19-105(b)(13). Work email addresses generally must not. The custodian needed to review each email address and decide based on whether it was personal or work.
- References. If Conner's references were public employees, their personal contact information should be redacted. If they were private-sector, their contact information was not exempt and should be released.
What this means for you
If you are a state employee whose personnel file is getting a FOIA request, even your promotion and demotion letters can usually be released as personnel records, unless they specifically evaluate your performance (which is a higher bar than they might appear to meet). Generic encouragement language in a promotion letter doesn't make it an evaluation record. A demotion you yourself requested for personal reasons isn't an evaluation record either. The Master Data Forms with salary changes also get released because they don't contain evaluative content.
If you are a records custodian processing a FOIA request, three takeaways: First, classify each record carefully as personnel or evaluation; promotion/demotion letters are not automatically evaluations. Second, be consistent across multiple copies of the same form; if a 2024 version of a record had a redaction and the 2025 version did not, fix that. Third, on emails, redact personal addresses (gmail, yahoo, etc.) and release work addresses (the @doc.arkansas.gov style); if you redact a work address, document the specific exemption you're relying on under § 25-19-105(a)(3)(B).
If you have ever served as a job reference for a public-sector employee, your contact information may be released along with the personnel file unless you yourself are a public employee. If you are concerned about your information being disclosed, future reference letters should not include personal contact details unless you accept that they may be disclosable.
If you are a FOIA requester seeking personnel records, this opinion is a useful template: you can expect to see the standard personnel records, including administrative forms, salary information from Master Data Forms, and promotion/demotion correspondence, unless those records meet the strict evaluation-record test under § 25-19-105(c)(1).
Background and statutory framework
Arkansas FOIA at Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-101 et seq. provides a strong public-records presumption. Section 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) lets the custodian, requester, or subject of certain employee records seek an AG opinion on whether the custodian's release decision is consistent with FOIA.
The two-track framework for employee records:
- Personnel records: records pertaining to an individual employee, not created to evaluate the employee. Released subject to Young v. Rice balancing test and a categorical redaction list.
- Employee evaluation or job-performance records: records created by or at the employer's behest to evaluate the employee, detailing performance. Released only when § 25-19-105(c)(1)'s tougher test is met.
Some records are "mixed records" containing both personnel and evaluation content, or content from multiple employees. The custodian applies the appropriate test to each portion.
The categorical redaction list for personnel records is built up from many AG opinions and includes home addresses, DOB, personal phone and email, personnel numbers (security exemption), social security and driver's license numbers, marital status, names of dependents, insurance coverage, tax info, payroll deductions, net pay, banking, and "intimate financial detail."
The references rule comes from § 25-19-105(b)(13): personal contact information of public employees is exempt. Personal contact information of private-sector references is not.
Common questions
Q: Are my promotion and demotion letters releasable under FOIA?
A: Usually yes. The opinion confirmed that promotion letters and demotion-request letters are typically personnel records, not employee-evaluation records, unless they actually evaluate the employee's performance. Generic encouragement language in a promotion letter does not turn it into an evaluation. A demotion the employee requested for personal reasons is not an evaluation either.
Q: What about salary information on a Master Data Form?
A: Salary, salary changes, and basic reason codes (e.g., "New Hire," "Voluntary," "Competitive") are personnel-record information that gets released. The Master Data Form is administrative, not evaluative.
Q: Why does the custodian have to redact email addresses?
A: Only personal email addresses get redacted. Personal email addresses (typically @gmail.com, @yahoo.com, @hotmail.com, etc., used by an employee or reference) are personal contact information exempt under § 25-19-105(b)(13). Work email addresses (assigned by the employer) generally are not exempt. The opinion told the custodian to review each redaction and apply the right test for each.
Q: What's a "PREA Questionnaire" and why does it matter for this opinion?
A: PREA stands for Prison Rape Elimination Act, a federal law requiring corrections agencies to screen and train staff on sexual abuse prevention. Corrections employees periodically fill out PREA questionnaires. Two versions of these questionnaires for the same employee can have different redactions if processed at different times by different staff, which the AG flagged as an inconsistency to fix.
Q: What if my reference's information is on a confidential application form?
A: The form's classification matters. If the form is a personnel record, the references are part of that record and follow the standard rule: public-employee references' contact info gets redacted; private-sector references' does not.
Q: Can the AG override the custodian's redaction decisions?
A: The AG's review is for consistency with FOIA. The custodian must follow the AG's analysis when making the actual release. If the custodian disagrees, the requester can pursue judicial review under FOIA, but the AG's view is highly persuasive.
Citations and references
Arkansas statutes:
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(15)(A)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(11), (12), (13)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i)
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)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-038
April 27, 2026
Ms. Danielle Conner
Administrative Coordinator
Division of Community Correction
Arkansas Department of Corrections
Via email only: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Conner:
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 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 made a FOIA request to Arkansas Department of Corrections for your personnel file. The custodian identified certain employee records as responsive to this request and intends to disclose those records with redactions. You ask whether the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA. You also object to the unredacted release of "all addresses and phone numbers for [your] references."
You have provided redacted copies of the following employee records for my review:
- Administrative records. These include your "Certificate to Hire"; completed 2016 and 2014 "Employee Disclosure/Certification and Employment of Family Members Forms"; completed 2016 and 2014 "Employee Disclosure Requirements" forms; your 2016 and 2014 "Arkansas State Jobs" applications for employment, including character reference questionnaires and a current or previous supervisor questionnaire; 2016 and 2014 Employee Disclosure Requirements/Restrictions Notices; completed 2016 and 2014 "Qualification Inquiry" forms; signed 2016 and 2014 "Statement of Selective Service Status" forms; signed "Essential Job Functions" forms ("AD 14-10 Form 19" and "AD 14-10 Form 15"); your 2016 and 2014 conditional offers of employment; a completed Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification form; signed 2016 and 2014 "Workplace Notices" forms; two signed "Information Systems Access Request" forms ("AD 14-10 Form 22" and "AD 14-10 Form 17"); an "Employee Master Data Form" reflecting "Voluntary" change in pay; an "Employee Master Data Form" reflecting "New Hire" change in pay; an "Employee Master Data Form" reflecting "Competitive" and "10% Promotion" with no other reasons for change in pay; multiple signed "Code of Ethics and Rules of Conduct Policy Acknowledgment" forms; signed 2023 and 2025 "Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Questionnaire" forms; signed 2016 and 2014 "Hire Pack Checklists"; a signed "Arkansas Administrative Statewide Information Systems Information Confidentiality and Security Agreement"; a signed "Compensatory Time-Off Agreement"; a signed "Authorization to Operate State Vehicles and Private Vehicles on State Business" form; a completed "Leave Balance Quota Correction Form"; multiple spreadsheets showing "Absence quotas" and use of employee leave; handwritten pages that appear to reflect use of employee leave; and multiple signed "Administrative Directives" and "Secretarial Directives," including multiple signed acknowledgements of various policies and forms.
- Promotion and demotion letters. These include an April 27, 2016 promotion letter; an August 3, 2016 request-for-demotion letter; and an email concerning the demotion process in response to the request-for-demotion letter.
RESPONSE
The custodian's decision to release the records as redacted is mostly consistent with the FOIA. The custodian will need to review and ensure that redactions are consistent across copies of the same records. Further, the custodian will need to assess each record individually to determine whether disclosing certain email addresses would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. It is unclear based on the records themselves why some email addresses have been 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.
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.
2. 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.
3. Administrative records
In my opinion, the administrative records are best categorized as "personnel records," and the custodian's decision to release the administrative records is consistent with the FOIA's treatment of "personnel records." Public records are "personnel records" when (1) they pertain to an individual employee, as each document within the set of administrative records does; and (2) they are not an employee-evaluation or job-performance record — created by or at the behest of the employer to evaluate the employee. Although each administrative record appears to have been created by the employer, these records do not provide details or specifics concerning the employee's performance or lack of performance as an employee. So the records that make up the set of administrative records are best classified as "personnel records."
Personnel records are 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.
This Office has consistently opined that the following are personnel records subject to disclosure under the FOIA: documents that confirm someone's employment; dates of hire; general education background, including schools attended and degrees received; training and certifications; signed acknowledgments of having received policies and procedures; pre-employment background investigations; general change-of-status records that do not contain reasons for the change; employee race and gender; employee names; salaries; payroll records; and general resignation letters.
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; dates of birth of public employees; social security numbers; driver's license numbers; insurance coverage; tax information or withholdings; payroll deductions; names of children, spouses, and ex-spouses; net pay; banking information; and other financial "records that would divulge intimate financial detail."
If a job reference is a nonelected public employee, and that person's personal contact information is "contained in employer records," then such personal contact information should be redacted. But if the job reference is employed in the private sector, his or her personal contact information — such as addresses and telephone numbers — is not exempt from disclosure. Thus, to the extent that the names, addresses, and phone numbers of listed job references are employed in the private sector, such information should not be redacted.
While more than one of the "Employee Master Data Forms" lists salary, salary changes, and the reasons for those changes, they remain "personnel records" subject to release because they are administrative and do not provide additional specifics beyond "Voluntary," "New Hire," and "Competitive."
The "Applicant DL or ID Number" contained in the signed 2025 "Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Questionnaire" is unredacted, while the same information contained in the signed 2024 "Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Questionnaire" is not. The custodian will need to review the records to ensure that redactions are consistent.
4. Promotion and demotion letters
While this Office has concluded that letters related to promotions and demotions can constitute employee-evaluation and job-performance records, the two letters and the email at issue here do not meet the requirements for those records. Instead, they are better classified as "personnel records" because they pertain to a specific employee and do not evaluate the employee's performance.
The demotion letter is from the employee requesting that her employer give her a demotion "due to not being able to complete the [Parole/Probation Basic Training] PPO Academy" for undisclosed "health reasons." Even if this record was created by or at the behest of the employer — which is not clear based on the information submitted — it does not evaluate the employee's performance. The corresponding email simply notes the employee-requested "demotion" for purposes of starting the administrative process, without providing any reasons for it.
The promotion letter concerns a percentage-increase reward for the employee as a result of "completing the criteria established for a promotion." And while it alludes to the employee's performance with statements like "[t]o receive a promotion such as this takes a lot of hard work and decision," "[w]ith this promotion comes a raise in salary," and "keep up the good work," the letter still does not evaluate the employee.
Thus, each of these three records is a "personnel record" subject to release under the FOIA.
To the extent that an email address is personal (not provided by the employer), it would need to be redacted. It is unclear why an employee's email address has been redacted here. Because I do not have unredacted copies of the records or access to all relevant facts concerning the records, some privacy interest may exist that is not readily apparent. But the custodian will need to review the records and make that determination.
Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General