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?

Subject

Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections' planned release and redaction of Danielle Conner's personnel records is consistent with FOIA.

Plain-English summary

The custodian planned to release administrative employment records, two letters about promotion and demotion, and an email about the demotion, with redactions. The AG found the planned release mostly consistent with FOIA. The administrative records, including Employee Master Data Forms with salary changes and brief reason labels, were personnel records subject to release. The specific promotion letter, employee-requested demotion letter and related email did not evaluate Conner's performance, so the AG treated them as personnel records too. He did not say that all promotion or demotion letters have that classification.

The AG found inconsistent treatment of the “Applicant DL or ID Number” in two PREA questionnaires: it was unredacted in one and redacted in the other. He said the custodian should review the records for consistent redactions.

Some email addresses were redacted without a clear explanation. An email address that is personal and not provided by the employer must be redacted. The AG did not decide that the other addresses had to be released. He lacked unredacted copies and all relevant facts, said another privacy interest might not be apparent, and directed the custodian to review the records and decide whether disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.

The AG also addressed Conner's job references. A nonelected public employee's personal contact information in employer records should be redacted. A private-sector reference's personal contact information, such as an address or telephone number, was not exempt on the facts reviewed and should not be redacted.

What this means for you

Records custodians

The opinion calls for consistent redactions across copies or versions of records and a specific privacy assessment for the email addresses. It does not create a blanket rule that every employer-provided email address in these records must be released. It classifies the three promotion and demotion records based on their actual content, which did not evaluate the employee.

Employees, references and FOIA requesters

The AG treated the listed employment forms and the particular promotion and demotion correspondence as personnel records subject to release with proper redactions. Personal email addresses require redaction. For other email addresses, the custodian must assess the facts the AG could not review. The treatment of a job reference's personal contact information depends in part on whether that reference is a nonelected public employee or works in the private sector.

Common questions

Q: Are promotion and demotion letters always employee evaluations? A: No. The AG said letters of that kind can be evaluations, but these two letters and the related email did not evaluate Conner's performance and were personnel records.

Q: What did the AG say about the email addresses?
A: Personal addresses not provided by the employer must be redacted. For other addresses, the AG said the available records did not explain the redactions and a less obvious privacy interest might exist. He left the disclosure decision to the custodian's review.

Q: What was inconsistent about the PREA questionnaires?
A: The “Applicant DL or ID Number” was visible on the 2025 questionnaire but redacted on the 2024 one. The AG called for a review to make the redactions consistent.

Background and statutory framework

Personnel records under A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) are subject to release unless disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13) addresses personal contact information of public employees. The AG applied the records' content, not merely their labels, to classify the administrative forms and promotion and demotion correspondence.

Citations and references

• Statutes: A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12), (b)(13), (c)(3)(B)(i).
• Case: Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992).

Source

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

Original opinion text

TIM GRIFFIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

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” BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Ms. Danielle Conner
Opinion No. 2026-038
Page 2

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.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

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 Ms. Danielle Conner Opinion No. 2026-038 Page 3

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 files7 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. When reviewing documents to determine whether to release them under the FOIA, the custodian must 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.

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.8 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.9 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.”

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 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2020-037.
9
See, e.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2015-072, 1999-147; Watkins et al., supra note 7, at 202.
Ms. Danielle Conner
Opinion No. 2026-038
Page 4

Personnel records are 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 a thumb on the scale in favor of disclosure, has two steps.12

First, the custodian must assess whether the information contained in the requested record is of such a personal or intimate nature 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

This Office has consistently opined that the following are personnel records subject to disclosure under the FOIA: documents that confirm someone’s employment;15 dates of hire;16 general education background, including schools attended and degrees received;17 training and certifications;18 signed acknowledgments of having received policies and procedures;19 pre- employment background investigations;20 general change-of-status records that do not contain

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
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 97-063.
16
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-103, 95-256.
17
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2016-124, 2015-034, 2008-082, 2006-176.
18
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2002-252 (training), 2006-165 (educational background), 96-256 (certifications).
19
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-063, 2025-059, 2025-049, 2024-067, 2008-053. But see Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2002-326, 2002-210 (opining that just an “excerpt from the Department’s Policies and Procedures” is neither a personnel record nor an employee-evaluation or job-performance record). 20 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 95-256.
Ms. Danielle Conner
Opinion No. 2026-038
Page 5

reasons for the change;21 employee race and gender;22 employee names;23 salaries;24 payroll records;25 and general resignation letters.26 Therefore, the custodian’s decision to release these administrative records as “personnel records” is consistent with the FOIA.

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);27 employee personnel numbers or identification codes;28 marital status of public employees;29 dates of birth of public employees;30 social security numbers;31 driver’s license numbers;32 insurance coverage;33 tax information or withholdings;34 payroll deductions;35 names of children, spouses, and ex-

21
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2014-116, 99-040.
22
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-073, 2019-008, 2009-156, 2005-100, 99-305, 91-351.
23
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-156.
24
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2002-159.
25
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2008-129, 94-198.
26
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2020-056, 2012-144, 2012-019, 2006-216, 2002-320, 99-119, 96-088, 95-162.
27
A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
28
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). 29 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2001-080.
30
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-064.
31
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2006-035, 2003-153.
32
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2007-025.
33
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-167.
34
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 2003-385.
35
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 98-126.
Ms. Danielle Conner
Opinion No. 2026-038
Page 6

spouses;36 net pay;37 banking information;38 and other financial “records that would divulge intimate financial detail.”39

If a job reference is a nonelected public employee, and that person’s personal contact information is “contained in employer records,”40 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.41 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,42 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.

36
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-084, 2006-165, 2002-237.
37
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2018-064, 2018-015, 2002-043, 98-126.
38
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2005-194.
39
Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2005-194, 98-126, 95-242, 95-110, 94-235, 91-093, 87-422.
40
See A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(13).
41
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2025-064, 2025-059, 2025-023, 2016-129, 2015-008, 2010-070, 2005-131, 2001-080.
42
E.g., Ark. Att’y Gen. Ops. 2024-074, 2009-146, 2008-135, 2005-112, 97-261, 93-105, 92-231, 91-324.
Ms. Danielle Conner
Opinion No. 2026-038
Page 7

The promotion letter concerns a percentage-increase reward for the employee as a result of “completing the criteria established for a promotion.”43 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.44 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.45

Assistant Attorney General William R. Olson prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

43
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2013-066.
44
Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2004-225.
45
See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2025-132.