# Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 4, 2007 · 371 Ark. 217

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661444

## Case

- **Full name:** PULASKI COUNTY v. ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE, INC.; Jane Doe, Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 4, 2007
- **Citations:** 371 Ark. 217; 264 S.W.3d 465; 35 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2313; 2007 Ark. LEXIS 522
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Glaze
- **Judges:** Jim Gunter
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661444

## Opinion text

Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting. The Arkansas Democratstice, request for the Pulaski County email records generated by its employee, Ron Quillan, three and a half months ago. The newspaper still has not received them. The FOIA law is designed so the custodian of the records shall, within twenty-four hours of the receipt of a request for the examination or copying of records, make efforts to the fullest extent possible to determine whether the records are exempt from disclosure and make efforts to notify the persons making the request and the subject of the record of that decision. See Ark. Code Ann.. § 25-19-105(c)(3)(A) (Repl. 2002); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107 (b) (Repl. 2002) (setting out the process for expeditingjudicial review for those whose requests for records have been denied). Pulaski County has done nothing but delay access to the records, contrary to the intent of the Act.
As pointed out in Justice Paul Danielson’s opinion, the majority court exacerbated the delays in this case when it handed down a 4-3 per curiam opinion on July 20, 2007, remanding the matter to the circuit court for'an in camera review. Justice Daniel-son is correct in saying that the majority completely lost sight of and ignored the FOIA’s statutory scheme and our case law, when Pulaski County never attempted to rebut the circuit court’s findings and ruling that the emails in question were public records. 1
In my view, this simple case became complex when the majority court attempted to place a square peg in a round hole. In essence, what the majority has done is to permit a public employee to place pornographic material on a public computer, where it is presumed to be a public record, but, by allowing the employee to call the material “personal” or “private,” has enabled that public employee to subvert the purpose and intent of the Act. Such an employee’s inappropriate conduct should not be protected under any circumstances. If the majority had ruled, as it should have, that salacious photographs and material placed on the county’s computer by a county employee during working hours constitute public records, the taxpayers could readily learn how that employee performs his work and conducts the public’s business. It also is reasonable to believe that, when such inappropriate conduct is subject to public exposure, that abuse will end.
The Freedom of Information Act provides that “[i]t 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.” See Ark. Code Ann. § 12-19-102 (Repl. 2002). The majority’s overly prolonged treatment of this case has completely subverted the true intent of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act; indeed, instead of meeting the goals and objectives of the FOIA, this court’s actions have resulted in an absurd application of the Act’s purpose.
Oh, the irony of it all!
Justice Danielson’s opinion appears to show a willingness to assume Pulaski County made some attempt to rebut the presumption of public records at the initial hearing. I disagree with any such interpretation of the facts.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9661444. Public record. Not legal advice.