Court of Appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
The court of appeals erred by determining that the term " records" under Minn. Stat. § 419.06(9) (2014) includes a candidate's interview responses at the time the candidate is applying for a promotion.
Erik F. Hansen, Burns & Hansen, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.
Julie Fleming-Wolfe, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondents.
Appellant, Richfield Police Officer Greg Peterson, filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Minnesota Court of Appeals after he was denied a promotion based on the results of a civil service test conducted by respondent Richfield Police and Fire Civil Service Commission (Commission). Peterson claimed that the Commission violated Minn. Stat. § 419.06(9) (2014) by failing to review " records of efficiency, character, conduct and seniority" as part of the Commission's promotional process. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the Commission satisfied the statute's " records" requirement. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Minnesota Statutes § 419.01 (2014) authorizes cities to establish local police civil service commissions. Pursuant to this authority, the City of Richfield created the Richfield Police and Fire Civil Service Commission. In July 2013 the Commission approved a new procedure for filling vacant detective positions. The new procedure consisted of two parts: (1) a written examination, comprising 40% of the applicant's total score; and (2) an oral interview, comprising 60% of the applicant's total score.
After the new procedure was approved, the Richfield Police Department posted an opening for a detective position. The posting detailed the testing procedures, eligibility requirements, and application process for the position. The posting included the following statement: " DO NOT submit
a resume or supporting documents." Five officers, including Peterson, applied for the position. The candidates were given 60 days to review materials and prepare for the written examination and oral interview. On October 8, 2013, the written examination was administered, and 1 week later a four-member panel interviewed each of the candidates. The panel asked each candidate the same ten questions and each panel member scored each candidate's responses on a scale from one to ten. After the written and oral test scores were compiled, Peterson ranked fourth out of the five candidates. On October 29, 2013, the officer with the highest ranking was promoted to detective.
Peterson filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that the Commission failed to review " records of efficiency, character, conduct and seniority" during the promotional process, as required by Minn. Stat. § 419.06(9). In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals held that the Commission's promotional process met the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 419.06(9). See Peterson vs. Richfield Civil Serv. Comm'n, No. A13-2337, 2014 WL 3801391 (Minn. App. Aug. 4, 2014). In doing so, the court explained that " [t]he term 'records' has many definitions and encompasses various types of factual or historical accounts, including written documents." Id. at *2. The court noted, however, that " nothing in the broad concept of 'records' mandates a writing" and that " 'records'" can be " written documents, an oral account . . . , or some combination of the two." Id. The court further explained that Minnesota precedent supports a broad reading of the term " records." Id. at *3.
Minnesota Statutes § 419.06 sets out the general authority and duties of police civil service commissions. State v. Serstock, 402 N.W.2d 514, 517 n.3 (Minn. 1987). ...