Does Act 751 of 2025 stop our civil service commission from interviewing candidates for promotion to corporal or sergeant, or does it only restrict interviews for new hires?

Subject

City civil service commission interview authority for promotion candidates and applicants for appointment under Act 751 of 2025.

Plain-English summary

Representative Les Warren asked whether Act 751's new restriction on civil service commission interviews applies to both outside applicants seeking appointment and current police or fire personnel seeking promotion. The Attorney General concluded that the restriction in A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(3)(B)(ii) applies only to potential new hires. Commissioners remain authorized to interview candidates for promotion.

The AG relied on the Arkansas Supreme Court's reading in Burcham v. City of Van Buren. That case treated subsection (b)(3) as covering applicants for appointment, while separate provisions address promotion. The AG also pointed to subdivision (b)(9)(A)(iv), left in place by Act 751, which permits written, oral, or practical examinations in rating promotion candidates. Reading the new interview ban to cover promotions would make that oral-examination authority ineffective.

Act 751 says commissions have “only an indirect role” in examinations and bars them from interviewing and proctoring under the appointment provision. The opinion does not define every permitted indirect task or say which agency must design, approve, or deliver new-hire exams.

What this means for you

Civil service commissioners

The AG says you may continue to interview candidates for promotion. For applicants from outside the department seeking appointment, the amended subsection prohibits commission interviews. The opinion also quotes a restriction on commissioners proctoring examinations; it does not assign those tasks to another entity.

City attorneys and police or fire departments

Keep the distinction between appointment and promotion in the statutory text. Burcham supplies the court's explanation of that split, and the AG uses the unchanged promotion oral-examination provision to support his answer. This opinion does not establish an examination-design or administration plan for the department.

Officers seeking promotion

Act 751's new interview restriction does not, according to the AG, bar commissioners from interviewing promotion candidates. The opinion identifies the continuing authority for oral examinations in promotion eligibility lists.

Common questions

May commissioners interview applicants for new appointments?

The AG says no. He reads the new interview prohibition in § 14-51-301(b)(3)(B)(ii) as applying to potential new hires from outside the department.

May commissioners interview current personnel seeking promotion?

Yes. The opinion says the commission remains authorized to interview promotion candidates and points to the unchanged provision allowing oral examinations in promotion ratings.

Who now designs and administers new-hire examinations?

The opinion does not answer that. It quotes Act 751's “indirect role” language and the interview and proctoring prohibitions, then decides whether the interview ban reaches promotions.

Why does the distinction between an oral exam and an interview matter?

The AG says an oral examination fits the ordinary meaning of an interview. That supports his reading that Act 751 did not eliminate oral examinations for promotion while leaving the promotion provision in place.

Background and statutory framework

A.C.A. § 14-51-301 governs city police and fire civil service commissions. Its appointment and promotion provisions appear in separate parts of the statute. Burcham held that a requirement in subsection (b)(3)(A) applied only to applicants for appointment. The AG used that context to interpret the new ban in subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii). He also cited the principle that statutes should be read so an unchanged promotion oral-examination provision retains effect.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2025. Check the current text of § 14-51-301 before setting examination procedures.

Citations

• A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(3)(B)(ii) (interview and proctoring restriction)
• A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(4)(A) (promotions)
• A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(9)(A)(iv) (promotion oral examinations)
• Burcham v. City of Van Buren, 330 Ark. 451, 954 S.W.2d 266 (1997)
• Act 751 of 2025 (statutory amendment)

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2025-040

September 15, 2025

The Honorable Les Warren
State Representative
Post Office Box 22900
Hot Springs, Arkansas 71903

Dear Representative Warren:

You have requested my opinion regarding Act 751 of 2025, which amended A.C.A.
§§ 14-51-301(b)(3), -301(b)(4)(A)(i)(b), and -301(b)(7)(A). You have asked whether “Act 751 excludes a civil service commission from engaging in interviews with potential new hires and promotions or is simply limited to new hires.”

RESPONSE

As explained below, A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(3)(B)(ii) applies only to interviews with individuals from outside the department—that is, to potential “new hires.” Thus, a civil service commission remains authorized to interview candidates for promotion.

DISCUSSION

The prohibition on interviews in the updated version of A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(3)(B)(ii) applies solely to potential new hires. This conclusion follows from two key points:

1. The Arkansas Supreme Court has previously held that because promotions are not addressed until further into the statute (specifically, subdivision -301(b)(4)), the provisions in A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(3)(A) apply only to appointments, not promotions.
2. Section 14-51-301(b)(9)(A), which Act 751 of 2025 left unchanged, explicitly authorizes commissions to interview candidates for promotion.

Civil service commissions establish “and enforce rules and regulations governing the fire and police departments of [their] respective cities.” 1 They also set “[t]he qualifications of each

1
A.C.A. § 14-51-301(a)(1).

BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
The Honorable Les Warren
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-040
Page 2

applicant for appointment to any position” in the departments 2 and establish “[o]pen competitive examinations to test the relative fitness of applicants for the positions.” 3 For promotions, commissions similarly “determine the rank or ranks eligible to be examined for advancement to the higher rank.” 4

But the commissions’ main function related to filling vacancies is “creat[ing] and maint[aining]
… current eligibles lists for each rank of employment in the departments[.]” 5 Eligibles lists contain “the names of successful candidates in the order of their standing in the examination.” 6 When a person from outside the department applies for a vacancy, -301(b)(1) refers to that person as an “applicant for appointment.” 7 When a person from inside the department applies for a vacancy, -301(b)(4)(A)(i)(b) refers to that person as an applicant for “promotion.” Because examinations are rank-specific, an eligibles list for an advanced position could include both types of applicants. 8

With Act 751, the General Assembly determined that commissions “shall have only an indirect role” in examinations under subdivision (b)(3)(B)(i). 9 Specifically, commissions are now barred from “[e]ngaging in interviews” or “[p]roctoring exams.” 10 But before Act 751, the statute made no mention of “interviews,” and neither the statute nor the Act define the term. In the absence of a statutory definition, courts must give “words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in

2
Id. § 14-51-301(b)(1)(A).
3
Id. § 14-51-301(b)(2)(A).
4
Id. § 14-51-301(b)(4)(A)(ii)(a).
5
Id. § 14-51-301(b)(4)(A)(i)(a).
6
Id. Commissions may also establish eligibles lists “on an as-need basis [when] a vacancy is created as a result of death, termination, resignation, demotion, retirement, or promotion[.]” Id. § 14-51-301(b)(4)(A)(i)(b). 7 See Burcham v. City of Van Buren, 330 Ark. 451, 457, 954 S.W.2d 266, 269–70 (1997) (noting that the “the sole focus” of A.C.A. §§ 14-51-301(b)(1)(A), -301(b)(1)(B)(i), and -301(b)(1)(B)(ii) is applicants for appointment). 8 Ark. Att’y Gen. Op. 2017-072 (opining that commissions can “allow qualified law-enforcement officers who are not employed by that city’s police department to stand for examination so as to be considered for appointment to a vacant supervisory position”). 9 A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(3)(B)(ii).
10
Id.
The Honorable Les Warren
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-040
Page 3

common language.” 11 To that end, “interview” is commonly understood to mean “a formal meeting in which one or more persons question, consult, or evaluate another person.” 12

While the language of Act 751 might suggest that commissions cannot interview any candidate— for appointment or promotion—the Arkansas Supreme Court has previously held that -301(b)(3)(A) applies only to new hires. 13 In Burcham v. City of Van Buren, a patrolman challenged the city’s failure to promote him to corporal, 14 arguing that the examination was not advertised in the local newspaper as required by -301(b)(3)(A). 15 The court rejected this claim, explaining that applicants for appointment are “the sole focus” of subdivisions (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B)(i), and (b)(1)(B)(ii), while the requirements for promotions are addressed separately in subdivision (b)(4)(A). 16 Because of this context, the court concluded that -301(b)(3)(A) applies only to applicants for appointment. 17

This conclusion is bolstered by an additional argument. If one reads -301(b)(3)(A) to prohibit interviews for promotion, that reading would violate a standard principle of statutory interpretation. Specifically, the reading would render -301(9)(A)(iv) “superfluous.” 18 That provision, which governs “eligibility lists for promotion based upon open competitive examinations,” states that “exams may include a rating of applicants based on results of written, oral, or practical examinations, length of service, efficiency ratings, and educational or vocational qualifications.” And an oral examination fits neatly into the definition of “interview” noted above: “a formal meeting in which one or more persons question … or evaluate another person.” 19 In

11
Wickham v. State, 2009 Ark. 357, at 5-6, 324 S.W.3d 344, 347 (“[W] e are mindful that the first rule in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language”). 12 Interview, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 999 (2d ed. 1998).
13
Burcham, 330 Ark. at 457, 954 S.W.2d at 269–70. The General Assembly is presumed to be familiar with this court’s interpretations of its statutes, and if it disagrees, it can amend the statutes. Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. USAble Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 Ark. 368, 6, 533 S.W.3d 572, 575. 14 Burcham, 330 Ark. at 452, 954 S.W.2d at 267.
15
Id. at 456–57, 954 S.W.2d at 269–70.
16
Id. at 457, 954 S.W.2d at 269–70.
17
Id.
18
Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153, 159, 205 S.W.3d 767, 770 (2005) (“We construe the statute so that no word is left void, superfluous or insignificant. Meaning and effect are given to every word in the statute if possible”) (internal citations omitted). 19 Interview, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 999 (2d ed. 1998).
The Honorable Les Warren
State Representative
Opinion No. 2025-040
Page 4

order to give “[m]eaning and effect” to -301(9)(A)(iv), 20 we must adhere to the court’s previous interpretation of -301(b)(3), that it applies only to potential new hires.

Assistant Attorney General Jodie Keener prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.

Sincerely,

TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

20
Ward, 361 Ark. at 159, 205 S.W.3d at 770.