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?
Plain-English summary
Act 751 of 2025 amended the civil service commission statute that governs hiring and promotion in city police and fire departments. Among other changes, it added a new prohibition: commissions "shall have only an indirect role" in examinations and are now barred from "engaging in interviews" or "proctoring exams." The question Representative Warren put to the AG was whether this interview ban applies across the board, or only to applicants for appointment (new hires).
The AG concluded the ban is limited to new hires. Promotions are not affected. Commissions can still interview their own officers who are advancing through the ranks.
The reasoning rests on two pillars. First, the Arkansas Supreme Court held in Burcham v. City of Van Buren (1997) that the requirements in subsection (b)(3) of section 14-51-301 apply only to applicants for appointment, not to candidates for promotion. The General Assembly is presumed to know that interpretation when it amends the same subsection, and it did not change the structural split between (b)(3) (appointments) and (b)(4) (promotions).
Second, a separate subdivision (b)(9)(A)(iv), which Act 751 did not touch, explicitly authorizes commissions to administer "written, oral, or practical examinations" for promotion. An oral examination fits the dictionary definition of an interview ("a formal meeting in which one or more persons question, consult, or evaluate another person"). If the new interview ban applied to promotions, it would render (b)(9)(A)(iv) superfluous, which violates the canon against superfluous statutory text.
So commissions can keep doing what they have been doing for promotion candidates: oral exams, board interviews, and the like. They just cannot do those for outside applicants for new hire vacancies anymore.
What this means for you
If you sit on a civil service commission
You can still interview officers competing for promotion. Section 14-51-301(b)(9)(A)(iv) is your authority and it survived Act 751. You cannot, however, interview applicants from outside the department for new positions; that activity is now reserved away from the commission, with the commission having only an "indirect role" in those examinations.
When you publish your scoring rubric for promotion examinations, retain "oral examination" as a permitted component. Identifying it as an oral exam (rather than calling it an interview) keeps the (b)(9)(A)(iv) link clear and reduces the risk of a candidate later arguing that the oral component was actually a now-prohibited interview.
If you are a city attorney advising a commission
The structural fence Act 751 erected is between (b)(3) (appointments and the indirect-role mandate) and (b)(4) (promotions, which keep the prior framework). Counsel commissions to handle the two tracks differently. For appointments, commissioners do not interview or proctor. For promotions, commissioners can still rate candidates "based on results of written, oral, or practical examinations, length of service, efficiency ratings, and educational or vocational qualifications."
If you are a police chief or fire chief
For new-hire vacancies, you and your selection process now operate without commission interviews. Build a hiring pipeline that covers what commissioners used to do, while the commission still maintains the eligibles list and certifies the examination process.
For promotions, nothing about your existing oral-board or interview-component process needs to change because of Act 751. The commission can keep running the oral examination consistent with (b)(9)(A)(iv).
If you are an officer applying for promotion
The interview component of your promotion examination is still authorized under Arkansas law. Act 751 did not eliminate it.
Common questions
What did Act 751 actually change in section 14-51-301?
It amended subsections (b)(3), (b)(4)(A)(i)(b), and (b)(7)(A). The headline change is in (b)(3)(B)(ii), which now says commissions "shall have only an indirect role" in examinations and bars them from "engaging in interviews" and "proctoring exams." Before Act 751, the statute did not mention "interviews" at all.
Why doesn't the new prohibition reach promotions?
Two reasons. First, the Arkansas Supreme Court in Burcham v. City of Van Buren held that the requirements in subsection (b)(3) of section 14-51-301 apply only to "applicants for appointment," with promotions handled separately under subsection (b)(4)(A). The General Assembly is presumed to know that interpretation when it amends the same subsection. Second, subdivision (b)(9)(A)(iv) authorizes "rating of applicants based on results of written, oral, or practical examinations" for promotion eligibility lists, and Act 751 left that subdivision untouched. An oral examination is a form of interview. If the new interview ban applied to promotions, that would make (b)(9)(A)(iv) meaningless, which courts will not assume.
Does this opinion let commissions go back to interviewing patrol officers seeking promotion?
The opinion confirms commissions may continue to interview promotion candidates. That authority did not change. The new restriction is scoped to outside applicants seeking appointment.
What is an "oral examination" under (b)(9)(A)(iv)?
The statute does not define it, but the AG used the dictionary definition of interview: "a formal meeting in which one or more persons question, consult, or evaluate another person." That captures most oral panel formats commissions use for promotion testing.
What is the practical difference between an "appointment" and a "promotion" under section 14-51-301?
The statute treats them as separate tracks. An "applicant for appointment" comes from outside the department and is governed by subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(3). An applicant for "promotion" comes from inside the department and is governed by (b)(4). The two paths can converge on the same eligibles list (because exams are rank-specific), but the procedural rules differ.
What does "indirect role" in examinations mean now?
The statute does not fully define the phrase, but coupled with the explicit bans on "engaging in interviews" and "proctoring exams," the practical effect is that commissions design and approve the examination framework but do not personally administer or sit in on the new-hire examinations. Day-to-day delivery moves to the department or another testing entity.
Background and statutory framework
Two tracks: appointments and promotions. Civil service commissions oversee fire and police hiring under chapter 51 of title 14. Section 14-51-301(a)(1) gives them rule-making authority over those departments. The substantive subsections then split: (b)(1) and (b)(3) cover appointments (new hires from outside), (b)(4) covers promotions (advancement within), and (b)(9) covers the criteria for promotion eligibles lists.
Burcham v. City of Van Buren. A patrolman in Van Buren challenged the city's failure to promote him to corporal, arguing the promotion examination had not been advertised in the local newspaper as required by (b)(3)(A). The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected the claim, holding that (b)(3)(A) applies only to applicants for appointment. Promotions live in (b)(4)(A), which has its own procedural rules. That structural reading from 1997 is the foundation for this AG opinion.
Why the Burcham reading matters for Act 751. When the General Assembly amends a statute, courts presume it knows how the courts have construed the language it is amending. If Act 751 had wanted to extend the interview ban to promotion examinations, it could have said so or restructured (b)(4). It did neither. The Burcham fence between (b)(3) and (b)(4) carries forward.
Canon against superfluous text. Arkansas courts construe statutes "so that no word is left void, superfluous or insignificant." Reading the new (b)(3)(B)(ii) ban on interviews to cover promotions would erase the oral-examination authority in (b)(9)(A)(iv). The canon forecloses that reading.
What Act 751 left in place. Subdivision (b)(9)(A) governs eligibility lists for promotion based upon open competitive examinations. Subdivision (iv) lets commissions weight "rating of applicants based on results of written, oral, or practical examinations, length of service, efficiency ratings, and educational or vocational qualifications." Act 751 did not amend (b)(9), so this entire promotion-rating framework survives intact.
Citations
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 14-51-301(a)(1) (commission's rule-making authority over fire and police departments)
- A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(1)(A) (qualifications of applicant for appointment)
- A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(1)(B)(i)-(ii) (requirements for applicants for appointment)
- A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(2)(A) (open competitive examinations)
- A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(3)(A) (Burcham held this applies only to new hires)
- A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(3)(B)(i)-(ii) (post-Act 751 indirect-role mandate and ban on interviews and proctoring)
- A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(4)(A)(i)(a)-(b) (eligibles lists for promotion)
- A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(4)(A)(ii)(a) (rank-eligibility for promotion examinations)
- A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(7)(A) (amended by Act 751)
- A.C.A. § 14-51-301(b)(9)(A)(iv) (written, oral, or practical examinations for promotion eligibility lists)
Cases:
- Burcham v. City of Van Buren, 330 Ark. 451, 954 S.W.2d 266 (1997) (subsection (b)(3) applies only to applicants for appointment)
- Wickham v. State, 2009 Ark. 357, 324 S.W.3d 344 (statutory words given ordinary meaning)
- Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. USAble Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 Ark. 368, 533 S.W.3d 572 (legislature presumed to know prior judicial interpretations)
- Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153, 205 S.W.3d 767 (2005) (canon against superfluous statutory text)
Sessions law:
- Act 751 of 2025 (amended A.C.A. §§ 14-51-301(b)(3), (b)(4)(A)(i)(b), and (b)(7)(A))
Source
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:
-
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.
-
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." They also set "[t]he qualifications of each applicant for appointment to any position" in the departments and establish "[o]pen competitive examinations to test the relative fitness of applicants for the positions." For promotions, commissions similarly "determine the rank or ranks eligible to be examined for advancement to the higher rank."
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[.]" Eligibles lists contain "the names of successful candidates in the order of their standing in the examination." When a person from outside the department applies for a vacancy, -301(b)(1) refers to that person as an "applicant for appointment." 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.
With Act 751, the General Assembly determined that commissions "shall have only an indirect role" in examinations under subdivision (b)(3)(B)(i). Specifically, commissions are now barred from "[e]ngaging in interviews" or "[p]roctoring exams." 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 common language." To that end, "interview" is commonly understood to mean "a formal meeting in which one or more persons question, consult, or evaluate another person."
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. In Burcham v. City of Van Buren, a patrolman challenged the city's failure to promote him to corporal, arguing that the examination was not advertised in the local newspaper as required by -301(b)(3)(A). 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). Because of this context, the court concluded that -301(b)(3)(A) applies only to applicants for appointment.
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." 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." In order to give "[m]eaning and effect" to -301(9)(A)(iv), 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