Can the City of Heber Springs release police department employee salary, hire date, position title, and name records under Arkansas FOIA?

Plain-English summary

Seven Heber Springs Police Department employees objected to release of their salary, hire date, position title, and name records in response to a FOIA request. The custodian classified the records as personnel records and decided to release them with sensitive personal information redacted. The AG agreed.

This opinion is one of a sequence of identical opinions issued to small Arkansas cities receiving the same FOIA request. Police officer status doesn't change the analysis. Compensation data for public employees, including police officers, is releasable under the Young v. Rice balancing test, subject to the standard redactions for sensitive personal information.

The opinion does note that undercover officers' identifying information must be redacted under § 25-19-105(b)(10). For routine police personnel, that protection doesn't apply.

What this means for you

Police officers in Arkansas

Your name, salary, hire date, and position title are public records, the same as any other public employee. The fact that you carry a badge does not extend your personal privacy rights beyond standard sensitive personal information redactions (home address, DOB, phone, SSN, etc.).

If you work undercover, your identifying information can be redacted under § 25-19-105(b)(10). But "police officer" status alone is not undercover status.

Police departments and city HR

Process compensation FOIA requests for officers under the standard framework. Apply the standard redactions list. Don't add redactions because the subject is a police officer; the legal standard treats officers like other public employees in this context.

Citizens and journalists

Police officer compensation is public. Use this opinion as authority for that conclusion.

Common questions

What about my safety as an officer?

Standard required redactions cover home address, personal phone, and personal email. Those are protected. Your position, salary, hire date, and name are not. If you have a specific personal safety concern that goes beyond ordinary officer-safety considerations, raise it with the custodian and document it.

What about undercover officers?

Different category. Undercover officers' identifying information must be redacted under § 25-19-105(b)(10). The opinion's redaction list explicitly includes that.

Are SROs treated like other officers?

Likely yes for compensation FOIA purposes. School resource officers are public employees of the police department or school district, depending on the arrangement. The same personnel-records framework applies.

Background and statutory framework

Personnel records under § 25-19-105(b)(12) are released subject to the Young v. Rice balancing test. The AG has consistently treated police officer compensation data as releasable, the same as other public employee compensation. The undercover-officer exemption under § 25-19-105(b)(10) is the carve-out for active undercover work.

Citations

• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(10) (undercover officer protection)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) (personnel-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(13) (required redactions)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(1) (evaluation-records exemption)
• Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(B)(i) (AG opinion procedure)
• 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. 2021-038
June 8, 2021
Levy Burris
Christopher Gracey
Stephen Griffin
Jeffery Hiltz
Daniel Malone
John Murphy
Lloyd White
Heber Springs Police Department
c/o David A. Gibbs, City Treasurer
1001 West Main Street
Heber Springs, AR 72543

Dear Messrs. Burris, Gracey, Griffin, Hiltz, Malone, Murphy, and White:

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

Your correspondence indicates that the City of Heber Springs has received a request under the FOIA for "records regarding the salary/compensation, hire date, position titles and names of any and all employees for the year 2020." You have attached a memorandum from the custodian of the records in which he has determined that the requested records are personnel records that are releasable pursuant to the FOIA, but that "sensitive personal information, such as address, date of birth, telephone number, or social security information," is not releasable. As the subjects of the requested records, you all ask for an opinion as to whether the custodian's decision regarding the release of the records is consistent with the FOIA.

RESPONSE

Because I have not seen any records that would be responsive to your 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. I can state generally, however, that the bulk of the information requested (salary/compensation, hire date, position titles, and employee names) is subject to inspection and copying under the FOIA. Additionally, the custodian has correctly decided that sensitive personal information is not releasable.

DISCUSSION

The custodian has classified the requested records as personnel records. Records of employees' salaries, hire dates, position titles, and names likely constitute personnel records.

Personnel records under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(12) are open to public inspection and copying except "to the extent that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Young v. Rice provides the balancing test, with the scale tipped in favor of disclosure. The custodian's decision to release the records with sensitive personal information redacted is consistent with the FOIA. The standard required-redactions list includes information identifying undercover law enforcement officers under § 25-19-105(b)(10).

A FOIA requester's identity or motive for making the request is generally irrelevant to whether a record must be released.

Sincerely,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE
Attorney General