Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-102 (2026)
Legislative intent
It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the electors shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in making public policy. Toward this end, this chapter is adopted, making it possible for them or their representatives to learn and to report fully the activities of their public officials.
History. Acts 1967, No. 93, § 2; A.S.A. 1947, § 12-2802.
Research References
ALR.
Construction and Application of Public Domain or Official Acknowledgment Doctrine Allowing Courts to Disregard FOIA Exemption, Other Than Law Enforcement Exemption, Based on Prior Public Release of Requested Records. 17 A.L.R. Fed. 3d Art. 1 (2016).
Ark. L. Rev.
Recent Developments, Freedom of Information Act — Public Meetings Requirement, 57 Ark. L. Rev. 1015.
Case Notes
Construction.
The objectives of this chapter are such that whenever the legislature fails to specify that any records in the public domain are to be excluded from inspection, or is less than clear in its intendments, then privacy must yield to openness and secrecy to the public's right to know the status of its own affairs; therefore, the burden of confidentiality rests on the legislation itself, and if the intention is doubtful, openness is the result. Ragland v. Yeargan, 288 Ark. 81, 702 S.W.2d 23 (1986).
After reviewing this section and §§ 25-19-105 and 25-19-106, the court found nothing in the Freedom of Information Act that specifies that the communications media by which the public's business is conducted are limited to publicly owned communications; thus, the court rejected a state employee's claim that the employee was asked to violate the law by communicating with the governor via a private email address and, thus, the employee's subsequent resignation was voluntary without good cause and the employee was not entitled to benefits under § 11-10-513(a)(1). Bradford v. Dir., Empl. Sec. Dep't., 83 Ark. App. 332, 128 S.W.3d 20 (2003).
City administrator's succession of one-on-one conversations with each member of the city's board of directors violated the “open meetings” provision of the Freedom of Information Act, §§ 25-19-101 — 25-19-109; through its conversations the board held a meeting within the intent of the FOIA such that the city's actions resulted in a consensus being reached on a given issue, thus rendering the formal meeting held before the public a mere charade. Harris v. City of Fort Smith, 86 Ark. App. 20, 158 S.W.3d 733 (2004), aff'd, 359 Ark. 355, 197 S.W.3d 461 (2004).
Delegation of Duties.
The requirements of this chapter cannot be circumvented by delegation of regular duties to one specially retained to perform the same task as the regular employee or official. This would be contrary to the requirements and intent of this chapter. City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990).
Motivation of Persons Seeking Records.
Department claimed the citizen's request for a municipal ratepayer's home address fell outside the stated purpose of the Freedom of Information Act and the address should not be disclosed, but the department pointed to no law that required a citizen to give a reason for his or her request to inspect public records, and the Act does not direct itself to the motivation of the person who seeks public records. Hopkins v. City of Brinkley, 2014 Ark. 139, 432 S.W.3d 609 (2014).
Cited: Ark. State Police Comm'n v. Davidson, 253 Ark. 1090, 490 S.W.2d 788 (1973); Ark. Gazette Co. v. Pickens, 258 Ark. 69, 522 S.W.2d 350 (1975); Mayor of El Dorado v. El Dorado Broadcasting Co., 260 Ark. 821, 544 S.W.2d 206 (1976); Ark. Hwy. & Transp. Dep't v. Hope Brick Works, Inc., 294 Ark. 490, 744 S.W.2d 711 (1988); Depoyster v. Cole, 298 Ark. 203, 766 S.W.2d 606 (1989).