Arkansas

Overview

Arkansas

The Supreme Court of Arkansas quoted noted 18th Century legal writer Sir William Blackstone in arguing that the public has a common-law presumption of access in Commercial Printing Co. v. Lee, 553 S.W.2d 270, 273-74 (Ark. 1977).

Act 1259 of 2001 amended the FOIA by adding an exemption that allows state boards and commissions to “meet in executive session for purposes of preparing examination materials and answers to examination materials which are administered to applicants for licensure . . . .” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-106(c)(5)(A). Also, boards and commissions “are excluded from [the FOIA] for the administering of examinations to applicants for licensure.” Id. § 25-19-106(c)(5)(B). Similar provisions had previously been enacted with respect to particular licensing agencies. E.g., Ark. Code Ann.

The statute does not give a definition of "reporter." No other statute or case offers such a definition.

Because groups that simply render advice lack final decision-making authority, they are not governing bodies and their meetings are not subject to the FOIA. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2007-224 (curriculum review committee). If, however, an advisory group’s recommendations are automatically accepted or “rubber-stamped” by its parent entity, then it is a de facto governing body and must comply with the act. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. Nos. 2000-260, 2000-251, 99-407, 98-169, 98-113, 96-074, 91-288.

The FOIA exempts “education records as defined in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, unless their disclosure is consistent with the provisions of [that act].” Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(2). The FERPA includes a student’s participation in sports to be “directory information” that may be published. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(5).

“Stat sheets” that detail the scoring at athletic events are subject to disclosure if high-school students’ names and identifying information are redacted. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2001-150.

(1) In general. The FOIA also contains a “catch-all” provision that incorporates by reference other statutes that expressly provide for nondisclosure. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(a)(1) (records are open to inspection “[e]xcept as otherwise specifically provided by . . . laws enacted to provide otherwise.”) In order to fall within this provision, a statute must specifically provide for nondisclosure. Troutt Brothers Inc. v. Emison, 311 Ark. 27, 841 S.W.2d 604 (1992); Ragland v. Yeargan, 288 Ark. 81, 702 S.W.2d 23 (1986).

Overview

Arkansas

In 2007, the Supreme Court of Arkansas adopted an administrative order that outlines the state’s new policy on court record access, with a purpose to “promote accessibility to court records.” Administrative Order Number 19, (Ark. Feb. 22, 2007) (per curium).

The FOIA does not provide a procedure by which a citizen may request that the governing body allow him to attend an upcoming meeting, and the act does not require that such a request be made. Moreover, a premeeting request is virtually impossible if the agency does not provide an agenda outlining the topics for discussion and its plan to hold a closed session. As noted above, the FOIA’s notice provisions do not require that an agenda be included with the notice of the meeting.

If served with a subpoena duces tecum to produce documents or materials at a deposition, a witness may file a written objection to the inspection or copying of such documents. If an objection is made, the party issuing the subpoena may not inspect or copy the materials except upon a court order. If the party issuing the subpoena does move for such an order, that party must give notice to the objecting deponent. Ark. R. Civ. P. 45(e).

(This section is blank. See the subpoints below.)