Can a North Little Rock School District employee block FOIA release of personnel records by claiming the requester's motive is a personal vendetta against the communications director?

Plain-English summary

The North Little Rock School District received a FOIA request for "personnel records for every employee in the district." Lori Brush-Finley, an NLRSD employee, objected. Her main concerns: the requester had publicly stated on social media that the request was meant to satisfy a "personal vendetta" against the district's communications director, and she worried that her exempt personal information might accidentally get released given how voluminous the request was.

The AG provided a limited response. Three points:

Requester motive is irrelevant. The opinion is direct: "neither the Arkansas Legislature nor our appellate courts have allowed custodians to consider the subjective motive of the requester." A vendetta claim, even one the requester openly states, is not a basis for denial. There is no harassment exemption to FOIA.

The AG cannot enforce FOIA. Section 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) gives the AG advisory authority to opine on whether release decisions are consistent with FOIA. It does not give the AG enforcement power. If a custodian violates FOIA, the remedies are criminal prosecution under § 25-19-104 (a Class C misdemeanor) or civil suit in circuit court under § 25-19-107.

The standard framework still applies. Personnel records get the Young v. Rice balancing test. Evaluation records get the four-prong test. Required redactions (personal contact info, DOB, SSN, medical, banking) apply across the board. Voluminous nature of a request is not a basis for denial; it can be a basis for an extended timeline.

The AG declined to opine on the specific records (none were provided) and instead set out the general framework.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2021. 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

What if the requester admits they want to embarrass me?

Still not a basis for denial. The opinion is unambiguous. The custodian's analysis must be objective. Embarrassment to a public employee is not a privacy interest that outweighs the public's interest in seeing how the agency operates.

What if I'm the communications director the requester is targeting?

You don't get any extra protection because you are the apparent target. The personnel-records framework treats you the same as any other public employee. Your name, position, salary, hire date, and disciplinary record (if discipline happened with finality) are subject to release.

Can the AG order the custodian to do anything?

No. The AG provides an advisory opinion. The custodian decides what to do. If the custodian violates FOIA, the available enforcement is criminal prosecution by the county prosecutor or civil suit by the affected citizen.

What if the custodian releases my exempt personal information by mistake?

That's a possible FOIA violation. You could pursue a circuit court action under § 25-19-107 to address improper release, although the practical remedy after release is limited (you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube). The better practice is for the custodian to take quality control seriously upfront.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion repeats the standard framework: three-element test for disclosure, personnel-records exception with Young v. Rice balancing, evaluation-records exception with the four-prong test, and the standard required-redactions list.

Two specific points unique to this opinion:

• The AG cannot enforce FOIA. Enforcement is criminal (prosecutor) or civil (circuit court), not AG.
• Voluminous requests are not denied based on volume; they get extended timelines.

The motive-irrelevance rule has been expressed in many AG opinions: 2019-036, 2018-125, 2014-094, 2012-014, 2011-107. Op. 2014-094 expressly states that "neither the Arkansas Legislature nor our appellate courts have allowed custodians to consider the subjective motive of the requester."

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-104 (criminal penalty for FOIA violations)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion procedure)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107 (civil enforcement)
• Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992)
• Thomas v. Hall, 2012 Ark. 66

Source

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

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2021-028
May 12, 2021
Lori Brush-Finley
c/o Jacob Smith, Executive Director
Human Resources
North Little Rock School District
2400 Willow Street
North Little Rock, AR 72114

Dear Ms. Brush-Finley:

You have requested my opinion regarding the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Your request, which is made as the subject of the requested records, is based on Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2019).

Your correspondence indicates that the North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD") has received a request under the FOIA for "personnel records for every employee in the district." The records custodian has notified you of the request and of the custodian's determination "that some records are not exempt from disclosure and will be disclosed ...." You state that the requester "has made public, via social media, that his intentions are purely to satisfy a personal vendetta against [the school district's] communications director." You also express concern that some of your exempt personal information may accidentally be released to the requester, given the voluminous nature of the request, and you seek my opinion.

RESPONSE

As a preliminary matter, I must emphasize that my duty under section 25-19-105(c)(3)(B) is to state whether the custodian's decision as to the release of "personnel or evaluation records" is consistent with the FOIA. The FOIA has no provision establishing a state compliance office and does not authorize the Attorney General to enforce FOIA requests.

This opinion is therefore limited to a discussion of the pertinent provisions of the FOIA bearing on employment-related records. Because I have not seen any records the school district has determined to be responsive to the instant FOIA request, I cannot opine about the releasability of any specific document or the need to redact any specific piece of information from an otherwise releasable document. Accordingly, I can only set out the legal standards the custodian must apply to determine whether certain employee-related records must be disclosed.

DISCUSSION

A FOIA requester's identity or motive for making the request is generally irrelevant to whether a record must be released. The test under the FOIA for the release of personnel records asks whether, as an objective matter, the records in question shed light on the workings of government for the general public.

For voluminous requests, the General Assembly "has not created an exception to disclosure for voluminous requests that take extensive time and resources to respond to." A custodian receiving a voluminous request may advise the requester within three working days that the search will be lengthy and provide a target completion date.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General