Can a Maumelle city alderman get FOIA copies of police and fire department employee timesheets, including hours worked and leave taken, for a one-week period?

Plain-English summary

Caleb Norris, the Maumelle City Attorney, asked the AG to review (as the custodian's lawyer) the City's decision to release a one-week stretch of employee timesheets from the Maumelle Fire Department and Maumelle Police Department in response to a FOIA request from a Maumelle City Alderman. The custodian had concluded that the timesheets were personnel records and that release would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

AG Leslie Rutledge concluded the custodian had it right, with one caveat about the "Employee No." field on each timesheet.

The structural analysis tracked the AG's standard FOIA framework:

1. Public record under § 25-19-103(5)(A). The City is a public entity. The timesheets are records of employees' attendance and leave taken. They qualify as public records.
2. Personnel records exception. Attendance and leave records have been consistently classified as personnel records (rather than employee-evaluation records) in prior AG opinions including Op. Att'y Gen. 2013-022.
3. Young v. Rice balancing favors disclosure. As the AG put it (quoting Op. Att'y Gen. 2012-136): "While there is arguably a greater than de minimus privacy interest in the fact that an employee used sick or annual leave, that interest is, in my opinion, outweighed by the balancing test's second step. Specifically, disclosing whether an employee used annual or sick leave sheds light on an agency's performance of its duties because, among other things, it shows whether the agency is properly adhering to the policies limiting the amount of leave (whether annual or sick) that employees may take."
4. Employee No. caveat. Each timesheet has an "Employee No." entry. If those numbers function as PINs that grant access to computerized data, they fall within § 25-19-105(b)(11) (records containing "personal identification numbers" used for computer security functions are specifically exempt). The AG had no information on the nature of those numbers but flagged that the custodian should determine whether they fit § 25-19-105(b)(11) before release.

The AG also flagged a separate issue (citing Op. Att'y Gen. 2012-136 and 2007-258) that if the timesheets also state the reason an employee used sick or annual leave, the custodian may need to apply additional analysis to that reason field, because the reason can implicate health information or other privacy-sensitive content. The opinion noted this as a potential further question, not a defect in the current disclosure.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Why timesheets are personnel records, not evaluation records

Attendance and leave records are not evaluations of the employee's performance. They reflect the bare fact of presence, absence, or use of accrued leave time. They do not "detail the employee's performance or lack of performance on the job" in the Thomas v. Hall sense. They are pure personnel records, with the Young balancing test applying.

The disclosure analysis under Young v. Rice

The first step asks whether the information is of a personal or intimate nature giving rise to a privacy interest greater than de minimis. An employee's use of sick leave touches on health and family, so the AG conceded that the interest is "arguably" above de minimis. The second step weighs the privacy interest against the public's interest in disclosure. The AG concluded the public's interest predominates: timesheets show whether agencies are administering their leave policies properly, which is core public oversight territory.

Section 25-19-105(b)(11): the PIN exception

Section 25-19-105(b)(11) carves out "personal identification numbers" used for computer security functions. The provision protects against disclosure of credentials that would give a requester access to government systems. The AG flagged that "Employee No." fields can sometimes function as access keys to computerized HR data. If that is true of Maumelle's system, the numbers must be redacted before release. If the numbers are purely internal accounting codes with no access function, redaction is not required.

Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-070 (regarding the AASIS employee database) is the AG's earlier opinion on related facts; the custodian there had correctly redacted "employee personnel number" because it provided access to an employee's Social Security number. Op. Att'y Gen. 2014-094 reaches a similar conclusion.

Common questions

Q: Can a city council member get FOIA copies of police and fire department timesheets?
A: Yes. Timesheets are personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12) and are releasable under the Young v. Rice balancing test. The public's interest in seeing how the agency administers its leave policies outweighs the employee's privacy interest in the fact of leave use.

Q: Does the requester have to be a city official to get the records?
A: No. The FOIA does not condition access on the requester's identity or role. A private citizen, a journalist, or an opposing political candidate can request the same records and is entitled to the same disclosure.

Q: What happens to the "Employee No." field on the timesheet?
A: It depends on whether the number provides access to computerized data. If yes, it must be redacted under § 25-19-105(b)(11). If no, it can be released. The custodian makes that factual call.

Q: What if the timesheet lists the reason for sick leave (medical condition, family illness)?
A: That triggers a separate analysis. Reasons can implicate medical information protected by other AG opinions and statutory provisions. The custodian may need to redact reason fields case by case.

Q: What about timesheets for employees who were terminated or suspended?
A: Timesheets remain personnel records, not evaluation records, even for separated employees. The same Young balancing applies.

Q: Can the requester ask for timesheets for an entire year, or only a one-week window?
A: The FOIA does not impose a time-window limit on requests. The custodian's burden grows with the scope, but the records themselves remain disclosable on the same basis.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• A.C.A. § 25-19-103(5)(A) (Supp. 2015) (definition of public record)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2015) (AG opinion procedure)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(11) (Supp. 2015) (PIN exemption for computer security)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exception)
• A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (employee evaluation records exception)

Cases:

• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992)
• Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 313, 965 S.W.2d 125, 128 (1998)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Official summary

Is the decision of the custodian of records to release employee timesheets from March 10 through March 13, 2016, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, consistent with provisions of the FOIA? RESPONSE: It is my opinion that, with the possible exception of one item of information, the custodian has properly determined that these attendance/leave records are subject to release under the test applicable to personnel records. Each timesheet contains an entry for "Employee No." I have no information regarding this entry. But if these numbers provide access to computerized data, this information must be redacted, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. sec. 25-19-105(b)(11), prior to the records' release.

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2016-031
March 28, 2016
The Honorable Caleb Norris
City Attorney
550 Edgewood, Suite 590
Maumelle, AR 72113
Dear Mr. Norris:
STATE OF ARKANSAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information
Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the custodian's attorney, is based
on A.C.A. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2015). [The full original applies the standard FOIA analysis (public record, personnel records exception, Young v. Rice balancing) and flags the § 25-19-105(b)(11) exception for the Employee No. field. The substantive analysis is summarized in the sections above.]
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General