Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Recent Developments, Freedom of Information Act — Public Meetings Requirement, 57 Ark. L. Rev. 1015.

Case Notes

Custodian.

Circuit court abused its discretion in issuing a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff competitor under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq., because the plaintiff failed to sue an entity covered under FOIA; the competitor could not sue a private corporation alone under FOIA and direct it to produce public records it possessed by virtue of its contracts with counties because the private corporation was not the custodian of the public records. The circuit court's conclusion that county officials were unnecessary parties to a dispute over access to their public records was clearly erroneous. Apprentice Info. Sys. v. DataScout, LLC, 2018 Ark. 146, 544 S.W.3d 39 (2018).

Public Funds.

A private, nonprofit association of colleges and secondary schools which was composed of public servants and accepted public moneys was subject to this chapter. North Cent. Ass'n of Colleges & Sch. v. Troutt Bros., 261 Ark. 378, 548 S.W.2d 825 (1977).

A ground lease between a city and the American Red Cross, wherein the city charged the Red Cross a one-dollar-per-year lease payment, did not qualify as support by public funds within the meaning of subdivision (1). Sebastian County Chapter of Am. Red Cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656, 846 S.W.2d 641 (1993).

The plain language of subdivision (1) confirms that the General Assembly intended that direct public funding be required; had the General Assembly intended to extend this act to private organizations that receive any form of government assistance or subsidy, no matter how indirect, it would not have used the words “supported … by public funds” to describe the nature of support necessary to trigger this act. Sebastian County Chapter of Am. Red Cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656, 846 S.W.2d 641 (1993).

Refusal to read indirect government benefits or subsidies into the term “public funds” is not at odds with a liberal construction of this act. Sebastian County Chapter of Am. Red Cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656, 846 S.W.2d 641 (1993).

The term “public funds” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning which is best evidenced by Black's Law Dictionary and the definition “moneys belonging to government.” Sebastian County Chapter of Am. Red Cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656, 846 S.W.2d 641 (1993).

Public Meetings.

Where committee of a state board meets to transact business, such meeting is a public meeting subject to the provisions of this chapter and a newspaper reporter must be permitted to attend. Ark. Gazette Co. v. Pickens, 258 Ark. 69, 522 S.W.2d 350 (1975).

This section does not encompass staff meetings of the Department of Human Services held to develop a bid solicitation. National Park Medical Ctr. v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 322 Ark. 595, 911 S.W.2d 250 (1995).

Where city board members held one-on-one meetings discussing the potential purchase of property, the meetings violated § 25-19-106(a) of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, § 25-19-101 et seq., because the members had made up there minds before the public meeting and, thus, the meetings constituted board meetings under subdivision (4) of this section. Harris v. City of Fort Smith, 359 Ark. 355, 197 S.W.3d 461 (2004).

Public Records.

Records of intercollegiate conference on the amount of money that its member institutions disbursed to its student athletes were not “educational” records under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, and were not closed to the public because they were not individual education or academic records; moreover, the conference was not entitled to exemption from disclosure since it was partially supported by public funds, and the dues paid by some member institutions were from state funds so that the conference records came within the terms of this section. Arkansas Gazette Co. v. Southern State College, 273 Ark. 248, 620 S.W.2d 258 (1981), dismissed, 455 U.S. 931, 102 S. Ct. 1416 (1982).

Recorded votes of individual members of committee constituted a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions carried out by the committee, and where there was testimony that it was the general practice of the committee to retain mailout ballots used in voting on matters coming before the committee then, the vote slips at issue constituted public records which should have been retained. Depoyster v. Cole, 298 Ark. 203, 766 S.W.2d 606 (1989), overruled in part, Harris v. City of Fort Smith, 366 Ark. 277, 234 S.W.3d 875 (2006).

Police crime scene photographs and pathologist photographs are “otherwise kept” for evidence in criminal cases as an “official function” of a police department, and are thus public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 298 Ark. 219, 766 S.W.2d 909 (1989).

Police investigation file with respect to the charges against defendant constituted “public records” as defined in subdivision (1). Martin v. Musteen, 303 Ark. 656, 799 S.W.2d 540 (1990).

Legal memoranda prepared by outside counsel for the City for litigation purposes are public records within the meaning of this chapter and are open to inspection. City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990).

Inmate records appellee requested were “public records” since they were required to be kept by law. Furman v. Holloway, 312 Ark. 378, 849 S.W.2d 520 (1993).

By requiring audits to be performed by a private auditing firm and not the state auditor, the state, in § 15-5-210, has elected to employ a private firm to perform a task normally carried out by state employees or officials; thus, the audit working papers of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee are considered public records subject to this chapter. Swaney v. Tilford, 320 Ark. 652, 898 S.W.2d 462 (1995).

Definition of “public record” in subdivision (5)(A) of this section does not require that the custodian be the person who actually keeps the document, nor does it say that the custodian must be required to keep the document. Fox v. Perroni, 358 Ark. 251, 188 S.W.3d 881 (2004).

Locus of a record is important only to determine whether the record falls under the presumption in § 25-19-103(5)(A) of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, and the definition of “public record” is not dependent upon who keeps the record or where it is kept, just that it either is required to be kept or is otherwise kept. Fox v. Perroni, 358 Ark. 251, 188 S.W.3d 881 (2004).

Where the records in question are established as “public records” pursuant to subdivision (1) of the this section and not otherwise exempted from disclosure, the appropriate governmental agency shall have the responsibility to provide reasonable access for examination and copying of such public records which are in existence at the time of the request, as provided in § 25-19-105. Fox v. Perroni, 358 Ark. 251, 188 S.W.3d 881 (2004).

Circuit judge's law clerk's personal check was a public record under this section, and the circuit judge was its custodian and had to disclose the check to an attorney and his counsel pursuant to § 25-19-105 where the circuit judge instructed his clerk to obtain copies of certain documents from a federal court for use in contempt proceedings against the attorney, and where the attorney and his counsel sought disclosure of the check under FOIA. Fox v. Perroni, 358 Ark. 251, 188 S.W.3d 881 (2004).

Seed sample did not meet the definition of a “public record” because it could not be said to be an object on which records and information may be stored or represented; the list of items that could be mediums did not contain a seed or any other object, and removal and destructive testing of seed samples went far beyond the inspection and copying of public records. Nolan v. Little, 359 Ark. 161, 196 S.W.3d 1 (2004).

Legal opinions rendered in tax cases under Gross Receipts Tax Rule G-75 are subject to disclosure to a company because they are “otherwise kept” public records under subdivision (5)(A) of this section; however, any and all identifying facts and information have to be fully redacted under § 25-19-105(f)(1)–(3). Moreover, the legal opinions are not confidential because § 26-18-303(a)(1) does not cover Gross Receipts Tax Rule G-75; state law does not require that the opinions be kept by or filed with the Director of the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. Ryan & Co. v. Weiss, 371 Ark. 43, 263 S.W.3d 489 (2007).

Circuit court did not clearly err in finding that the city clerk's destruction of the adding-machine tape did not amount to a violation of the Freedom of Information Act of 1967 where the city clerk testified that the relevant numbers had been recorded on other budget-meeting documents, the adding-machine tape was not meaningful nor was it something the city ever kept, and she gave the plaintiff citizen everything she had when he asked for it; plaintiff failed to prove that the adding-machine tape was required to be kept. Pitchford v. City of Earle, 2019 Ark. App. 251, 576 S.W.3d 103 (2019).

Cited: Legislative Joint Auditing Comm. v. Woosley, 291 Ark. 89, 722 S.W.2d 581 (1987); Ark. Hwy. & Transp. Dep't v. Hope Brick Works, Inc., 294 Ark. 490, 744 S.W.2d 711 (1988); Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992); Stilley v. McBride, 332 Ark. 306, 965 S.W.2d 125 (1998); Arkansas Dep't of Fin. v. Pharmacy Assocs., Inc., 333 Ark. 451, 970 S.W.2d 217 (1998).