Pulaski County Special School District; Charles McNulty, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Pulaski County Special School District and Custodian of Certain Records; And Valerie Bailey, in Her Official Capacity as Public Information Specialist v. Russell R. Racop

── Pulaski County Special School District; Charles McNulty, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Pulaski County Special School District and Custodian of Certain Records; And Valerie Bailey, in Her Official Capacity as Public Information Specialist v. Russell R. Racop ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 08, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 220 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-25-53 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL Opinion Delivered April 8, 2026 DISTRICT; CHARLES MCNULTY, IN APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PULASKI SEVENTEENTH DIVISION COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL [NO. 60CV-24-4563] DISTRICT AND CUSTODIAN OF CERTAIN RECORDS; AND VALERIE BAILEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY HONORABLE MACKIE M. PIERCE, AS PUBLIC INFORMATION JUDGE SPECIALIST APPELLANTS V. RUSSELL R. RACOP AFFIRMED APPELLEE ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge Appellants, Pulaski County Special School District; Charles McNulty, in his official capacity as superintendent and custodian of certain records; and Valerie Bailey, in her official capacity as public information specialist (collectively, the “District”), appeal from the circuit court’s order requiring disclosure of certain personnel records pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Arkansas Code Annotated sections 25-19-101 to -112 (Repl. 2024). The circuit court concluded that the suspensions referenced in appellee Russell R. Racop’s request had reached a “final administrative resolution” within the meaning of Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-19-105(c)(1). The District argues that the suspensions were not final because the matters had not been presented to the District’s school board. We affirm. Racop submitted a FOIA request seeking certain personnel records related to certified employees who had been suspended with or without pay. The request referenced an email sent by the District identifying multiple certified employees who had received suspensions. The District denied the request, asserting that the requested records constituted employee- evaluation or job-performance records that were exempt from disclosure because the disciplinary matters had not reached a final administrative resolution. Racop appealed the denial to the circuit court. Following a hearing, the circuit court found that the employees referenced in Racop’s request had no remaining administrative appeals available within the District’s policies and procedures and that the suspensions had therefore reached a final administrative resolution under the FOIA. The court ordered the requested records produced subject to the statutory redactions permitted by section 25-19- 105(b) pursuant to its order filed on October 2, 2024. The District filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 9, which was deemed denied due to lack of action by the circuit court. The District filed its timely notice of appeal on October 29, and this appeal followed. The FOIA was enacted to ensure that public business is performed in an open and public manner. See Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-102. Accordingly, the act is liberally construed in favor of disclosure, and exemptions are narrowly construed. See Ark. State Police v. Wren, 2 2016 Ark. 188, 491 S.W.3d 124; Pulaski Cnty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 370 Ark. 435, 260 S.W.3d 718 (2007); Young v. Rice, 308 Ark. 593, 826 S.W.2d 252 (1992). Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. See Ark. Dep’t of Corr. v. Shults, 2017 Ark. 300, 529 S.W.3d 628. Although we defer to the circuit court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, we review de novo the ultimate question of whether records must