Between December 22, 2025 and January 6, 2026, the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission (Commission) received appeals from three members of the Boston Police Department (BPD) regarding promotional examinations related to either the position of BPD sergeant or BPD lieutenant: 1) Daren Bradshaw (BPD lieutenant exam); 2) Nilton Ramos (BPD lieutenant examination); and 3) Kamau Pritchard (BPD sergeant exam).
On February 10, 2026, I, along with the Commission’s Deputy General Counsel, held a concurrent pre-hearing conference which was attended by co-counsel for the BPD, counsel for the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD), all three Appellants, and counsel for Appellant Pritchard.
Undisputed Facts
- The BPD entered into a delegation agreement with the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) to administer promotional examinations, including for sergeant and lieutenant.
- The BPD contracted with a vendor by the name of Morris and McDaniel (M&M) to conduct and score the examination.
- One portion of the examinations consisted of an experience and education (E&E) component.
- As part of the E&E component, applicants may claim credit for supervisory experience outside of the BPD, including, for example, private sector supervisory experience.
- In August 2025, all three of the Appellants received their examination scores along with notification of their appeal rights.
- Appeal rights accompanied the Appellants’ score notices.
- Prior to filing their appeals with the Commission, none of the Appellants filed an appeal with the Boston Police Department, the testing vendor, or HRD.
Relevant Civil Service Law
Section 22 of Chapter 31 states in relevant part that:
Except as otherwise provided by sections sixteen and seventeen, an applicant may request the administrator to conduct one or more of the following reviews relating to an examination: (1) a review of the marking of the applicant's answers to essay and multiple choice questions; (2) a review of the marking of the applicant's training and experience; (3) a review of a finding by the administrator that the applicant did not meet the entrance requirements for the examination; provided, however, that the administrator may deny such request in the case of a competitive examination for original appointment if, at the time such request is made, the administrator is currently accepting applications for a subsequent examination of the same type for the same position.
Such request for review of the marking of the applicant's answers to essay questions, of the marking of the applicant's training and experience, or of a finding that the applicant did not meet the entrance requirements for appointment to the position shall be filed with the administrator no later than seventeen days after the date of mailing by the administrator of the notice to the applicant of his mark on the examination or his failure to meet the entrance requirements for appointment to the position.
…
An applicant may request the administrator to conduct a review of whether an examination taken by such applicant was a fair test of the applicant's fitness actually to perform the primary or dominant duties of the position for which the examination was held, provided that such request shall be filed with the administrator no later than seven days after the date of such examination.
Section 24 of Chapter 31 states in relevant part that:
The commission shall refuse to accept any petition for appeal unless the request for appeal, which was the basis for such petition, was filed in the required time and form and unless a decision on such request for review has been rendered by the administrator.
Standard for Summary Disposition
The Commission may, on motion or upon its own initiative, dismiss an appeal at any time for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3). A motion before the Commission, in whole or in part, via summary decision may be filed pursuant to 801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(h). An appeal may be decided on summary disposition only when, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”, the undisputed material facts affirmatively demonstrate that the non-moving party has “no reasonable expectation” of prevailing on at least one “essential element of the case”. See, e.g., Milliken & Co. v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008); Lydon v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (“The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.”); Morehouse v. Weymouth Fire Dep’t, 26 MCSR 176 (2013) (“a party may move for summary decision when . . . there is no genuine issue of fact relating to his or her claim or defense and the party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law”).
Analysis
As none of the Appellants first filed an appeal with the BPD, the testing vendor or HRD related to this matter, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear their appeals.
I did consider Appellant Bradshaw’s argument that these appeals do not fall under Sections 22 through 24, but, rather, the broad umbrella of Section 2(b) of Chapter 31. For clarity, Section 2(b) states in part that the Commission is authorized “. . . to hear and decide appeals by a person aggrieved by any decision, action, or failure to act by the administrator, except as limited by the provisions of section twenty-four relating to the grading of examinations.” These appeals fall squarely under the definition of “grading of examinations” and require the Appellants to first file a timely appeal with HRD or the delegated testing administrator before appealing to the Commission. See Lincoln and another v. Personnel Administrator of the Department of Personnel Administration & Civil Service Commission, 432 Mass. 208 (2000) (Appeals Court vacated a Superior Court decision and affirmed that examination-related appeals must first be filed with HRD.)
While these appeals must be dismissed, the Commission received an appeal related to outside supervisory experience from Fabian Belgrave who sat for the sergeant examination (B2-26-012). As Mr. Belgrave did first file an appeal with the testing vendor, jurisdictional issues may not be a factor in that appeal and the underlying issue raised by these three Appellant may ultimately be addressed in any decision issued by the Commission regarding Mr. Belgrave’s appeal.
Conclusion
As the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear these appeals, they are hereby dismissed.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
/s/ Christopher Bowman
Christopher C. Bowman
Chair
By a vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners) on April 2, 2026, the Commission dismissed the Appellants’ appeals and accepted the recommendation not to initiate an investigation at this time.
Either party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten days of receipt of this Commission order or decision. Under the pertinent provisions of the Code of Mass. Regulations, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(l), the motion must identify a clerical or mechanical error in this order or decision or a significant factor the Agency or the Presiding Officer may have overlooked in deciding the case. A motion for reconsideration does not toll the statutorily prescribed thirty-day time limit for seeking judicial review of this Commission order or decision.
Under the provisions of G.L. c. 31, § 44, any party aggrieved by this Commission order or decision may initiate proceedings for judicial review under G.L. c. 30A, § 14 in the superior court within thirty (30) days after receipt of this order or decision. Commencement of such proceeding shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of this Commission order or decision. After initiating proceedings for judicial review in Superior Court, the plaintiff, or his / her attorney, is required to serve a copy of the summons and complaint upon the Boston office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, with a copy to the Civil Service Commission, in the time and in the manner prescribed by Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d)
Notice to:
Joseph McCllellan, Esq. (for BPD)
Michael Owens, Esq. (HRD)
James Gilden, Esq. (for Appellant Pritchard)
Daren Bradshaw (Appellant)
Nilton Ramos (Appellant)
