Can a Little Rock senior code officer block release of her ID photo and personnel file under Arkansas FOIA by objecting to the requester?

Plain-English summary

In October 2018, the same FOIA requester who sought the personnel files and city ID photos of Kyra McTyer (Opinion 2018-125) and LaTesia Quandt (Opinion 2018-126) also sought the personnel file and city ID photo of senior code officer Karla Williams from the City of Little Rock's Housing & Neighborhood Programs department. Williams, the subject of the records, objected to release. The custodian had decided the file was a personnel record subject to release, with address, date of birth, telephone number, and Social Security information redacted.

The AG took the same position as in 2018-125. Records depicting public employees are generally disclosable under the personnel-records test in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12). Williams's objection was not "a legally sufficient reason to withhold the records." The personnel-records test is objective; the requester's identity and motive are not part of the analysis. The AG enclosed Opinion 2018-125 for the full substantive framework.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. 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

Arkansas's FOIA presumes public records are open. The personnel-records exception in Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) protects records "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Arkansas Supreme Court's two-step balancing test from Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992), governs that determination, and the test is objective.

Section 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) lets the custodian, the requester, or the subject of personnel or employee-evaluation records seek an AG opinion. Williams used that channel as the subject.

This opinion is one of three short follow-ups (along with 2018-126 and 2018-128) to Opinion 2018-125, all addressing different city employees who objected to the same multi-employee FOIA request.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. 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.

Common questions

Does it matter that I'm a code officer rather than a desk employee?
Not under the framework the AG applied. Records depicting public employees are generally disclosable. A specific safety concern tied to a documented threat could change the analysis under Young v. Rice's balancing test, but no such facts were before the AG here.

Does my objection get an automatic AG review?
Yes, you can invoke § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) as the subject. But the AG's review applies an objective standard, and your subjective concerns about the specific requester are not, on their own, enough.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exception)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (right to seek AG opinion)
• Op. Att'y Gen. 2018-125 (the lead opinion in this cluster, with the full substantive analysis)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2018-127
October 11, 2018
Karla Williams, Senior Code Officer
Housing & Neighborhood Programs
3805 West 12th Street
Little Rock, AR 72204

Dear Ms. Williams:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2017). This subsection authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of personnel or employee evaluation records to seek an opinion from this office stating whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of such records is consistent with the FOIA.

Your correspondence indicates that the City of Little Rock has received a request under the FOIA for your personnel file, including your city identification photograph. The custodian has determined that the requested records are personnel records that are releasable pursuant to the FOIA. The custodian has also determined that "[n]o information like address, date of birth, telephone number or social security information is releasable." You object to the release of your file and photograph to the person who has submitted the FOIA request.

RESPONSE

My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decision is consistent with the FOIA. I addressed the custodian's decision regarding the same FOIA request in Opinion No. 2018-125, which is enclosed for your review. This opinion addresses essentially the same objections you have raised. I concluded that the basis for objecting does not appear to be a legally sufficient reason to withhold the records.

I will not restate the entire analysis, which applies equally to your request for my opinion. But in sum, records depicting public employees are generally subject to disclosure under the test for personnel records. Accordingly, the custodian's decision to release your photograph is likely consistent with the FOIA. And the requester's identity or motive for making the request is generally irrelevant to whether a record must be released. That is because the test for the release of personnel records is entirely objective, meaning that the custodian does not consider the subjective motives or identity of the requester.

Please see the enclosed Opinion 2018-125 for the entire substantive analysis.

Sincerely,
Leslie Rutledge
Attorney General

Enclosure: Opinion No. 2018-125 (the lead opinion in this cluster; the full enclosure text is preserved on the official record. See the linked landing page for the source filing.)