Are the salaries of city employees public information that anyone can request?

Plain-English summary

Fayetteville assistant city attorney Blake Pennington asked the AG to confirm that releasing a list of annual base salaries (with full name, job title, department, full/part-time status, hours worked) for City of Fayetteville employees was consistent with FOIA. One employee had objected on personal-privacy grounds.

The AG's answer was a clean yes. Public employee salary information is a personnel record under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12). Personnel records are open unless disclosure would be "a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The AG had previously opined many times that release of public-employee salary "will rarely rise to meet the 'clearly unwarranted' standard." The reason: the public is paying the salary and has a substantial interest in knowing how its money is being spent. The objecting employee's privacy claim could not flip that balance.

The opinion adds an important practical caveat: while gross (base) salary is disclosable, the employee's tax information (withholding amounts, pre-tax and post-tax deductions, and net pay) is not. Those items must be redacted from any payroll documents that are released. That comes from prior AG opinions including 2018-064.

So the practical answer for city HR or finance staff handling such a request:

• Pull a list with: name, job title, department, employment status (FT/PT), hours, and gross/base salary.
• If the source document is the actual payroll register, redact tax withholding, deductions, and net pay.
• Release the rest, even if individual employees object.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019. 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

Q: What if the salary is paid out of a special fund instead of general revenue?
A: It is still public salary. The source-of-funds question doesn't change the public-records analysis when the employer is a public agency.

Q: What about overtime or bonuses?
A: The AG opinion specifically referenced "base salary." Overtime, bonuses, and other forms of compensation paid by the public agency are also typically disclosable as personnel-record information about gross pay, though some categories of supplemental compensation may have additional privacy considerations.

Q: Do I as the employee get any notice before my salary is released?
A: Custodians often notify employees, but FOIA does not generally require advance notice or consent. The employee's option, if they want a more cautious decision, is to ask the custodian to seek an AG opinion under § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i).

Q: Can I object on the ground that the requester is "harassing" me?
A: The AG has noted that the legislature has not included a generalized "harassment" exemption in the FOIA. The objective public-records analysis controls regardless of the requester's identity or motive.

Q: What about retiree pension benefits?
A: That is not what this opinion addresses; pension records run through a different analysis tied to the relevant retirement-system statute.

Background and statutory framework

Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) makes personnel records open unless disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Arkansas Supreme Court's Young v. Rice balancing test sets the standard.

The AG's office has produced a long line of opinions confirming that public-employee salary is a personnel record (Op. Att'y Gen. 2018-121, 2015-072, 99-147; with 2018-093 specifically holding that salary information meets the personnel-record definition) and that release rarely meets the "clearly unwarranted" standard (Op. Att'y Gen. 2018-015 and earlier opinions cited there).

The narrower point about what in the payroll record stays out: tax withholdings, all pre- and post-tax deductions, and net pay distribution. Op. Att'y Gen. 2018-064 collected those rules.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG review)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103(7)(A) (public records definition)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel records exemption)
• Pulaski Cty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007)

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2019-072
December 11, 2019

Blake E. Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
113 West Mountain, Suite 302
Fayetteville, AR 72701

Dear Mr. Pennington:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as attorney for the City of Fayetteville, is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2017). This subdivision authorizes the custodian, requester, or the subject of certain employee-related 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 Fayetteville has received a request under the FOIA for "a list of the annual base salaries of employees of the City of Fayetteville. This document should include full name, job title, department, annual salary and part-time/full-time status or percentage of time worked. It should reflect the most recent information available. If only an hourly wage is provided, the number of hours worked each year should be included." One employee has objected to release of the requested record citing a "clear invasion of privacy." You have the attached a copy of the document that you have identified as responsive to the request and that you intend to release. You ask whether your decision to release the record is consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

My statutory duty is to state whether the custodian's decisions are consistent with the FOIA. A document must be disclosed 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 act. Second, the requested document must constitute a public record. Third, no exceptions allow the document to be withheld. It does not appear to be in dispute that the first two elements are met. The objecting employee asserts, however, that release of the requested record is a clear invasion of privacy, implying that the employee's salary information is, or should be, exempt from disclosure.

This office has consistently opined that an individual public employee's salary information must be evaluated under the provision of the FOIA applicable to "personnel records." The FOIA requires that personnel records be released unless doing so would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." This office has also been consistent in stating that the release of salary information will rarely rise to meet the "clearly unwarranted" standard. This means, absent truly extraordinary circumstances, a public employee's base salary information must be disclosed in response to a FOIA request.

Therefore, in my opinion, the custodian's decisions to classify the requested salary information as a personnel record and to release this information are consistent with the FOIA.

Please be aware, though, that while a public employee's gross salary information is subject to disclosure, this office has also consistently opined that the employee's tax information, such as withholding amounts, should be withheld, along with all pre- and post-tax deductions and the employee's net pay distribution.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General