Can a North Little Rock School District employee block FOIA release of all NLRSD personnel records by claiming the requester is trying to 'create havoc' for the communications coordinator?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2021. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Arkansas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Lori Hart, another North Little Rock School District employee, asked the AG essentially the same question that Lori Brush-Finley had asked the day before in Op. 2021-028. The same FOIA request was at issue: copies of all NLRSD employees' personnel records. Hart's objection was that the request "was made for no purpose other than to create havoc for the NLRSD Communications Coordinator."
The AG didn't repeat the analysis. Instead, the AG referred Hart to Op. 2021-028 for the substantive answer. The legal precepts and their application were the same.
The bottom line: requester motive is irrelevant. Even an admitted intent to "create havoc" doesn't constitute a basis for denial. Voluminous requests must be processed under the standard framework, with extended timelines if needed.
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
Why didn't the AG just write a longer opinion?
The AG's role is to provide legal analysis. When the legal analysis has already been provided in a published opinion, referring to that opinion is appropriate and efficient. The AG enclosed the prior opinion with this one for completeness.
Is the result really the same when one employee says "vendetta" and another says "create havoc"?
Yes. Both phrases describe the requester's subjective motive. Both are equally irrelevant to FOIA disclosure decisions.
Can multiple employees jointly challenge a request?
They can each ask for an AG opinion. The AG would address each separately (or refer to a prior opinion when the analysis is the same). Joint litigation in circuit court under § 25-19-107 is a separate option.
What if the same person files yet another similar opinion request?
The AG can decline to opine if the question has been fully addressed. The AG opinion process is not a way to keep relitigating the same legal question. If you have new facts or a new legal question, file a new request. If you don't, the prior opinion is the answer.
Background and statutory framework
This opinion is essentially a cross-reference to Op. 2021-028. Read that opinion for the full framework, including the three-element test for disclosure, the personnel-records exception with the Young v. Rice balancing test, the four-prong test for evaluation records, the standard required-redactions list, and the rule that requester motive is generally irrelevant.
The fact that two NLRSD employees filed separate but nearly identical AG review requests is itself instructive. When a public-records request is broad enough to affect many employees, expect multiple objections. The AG handles them under a single legal framework.
Citations
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion procedure)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exemption)
- Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-028 (the underlying analysis)
- Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593 (1992)
Source
Original opinion text
Opinion No. 2021-030
May 13, 2021
Lori Hart
c/o Jacob Smith, Executive Director
Human Resources
North Little Rock School District
2400 Willow Street
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Dear Ms. Hart:
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 copies of all NLRSD employees' personnel records. 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 ... within a reasonable amount of time due to the size of the request." Your correspondence also states that the "request was made for no purpose other than to create havoc for the NLRSD Communications Coordinator," and you seek my opinion.
RESPONSE
Your request for my opinion regarding the custodian's decisions as to the disclosure of your employment-related records, including your objections to the release of the records, is virtually identical to the request I responded to in Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-028, published Wednesday, May 12, 2021. The legal precepts and their application to your request are consequently the same as in that previous opinion. Therefore, I will not repeat the opinion herein, but instead refer you to the enclosed Opinion 2021-028 for the analysis and conclusions.
Sincerely,
LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General
Enclosure: Opinion No. 2021-028
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2021 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.