On August 9, 2025, the Appellant, Alessandro Colarusso, appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), pursuant to G.L c. 31, § 24, contesting the decision of the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) to deny him credit on the ECT&E component of the Statewide Fire Lieutenant Promotional Examination for: (1) teaching at the Massachusetts Fire Academy; and (2) other non-fire science outside supervisory experience. A remote pre-hearing conference was held on September 9, 2025.
Pursuant to a Procedural Order dated September 17, 2025, the Appellant’s Claim of Appeal (with Exhibits) and his Pre-Hearing Memorandum were deemed to be a Motion for Summary Decision with leave to supplement the filing with any additional information he believed would “support his claim to outside experience and/or fire academy teaching experience. . ..” HRD’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum with Exhibits was also deemed a Motion for Summary Decision and HRD was granted leave to supplement its filing after receiving the Appellant’s supplemental submission “with such additional information as HRD deem[ed] appropriate in support of its motion”— with particular emphasis on providing “an explanation why HRD eliminated academy teaching experience from the Fire Lieutenant ECT&E examination application but maintained such credit on the 2024 Correction Officers’ E&E examination component.”
On October 8, 2025, the Appellant filed a supplemental Motion for Summary Decision, and HRD refiled its Pre-Hearing Memorandum and Exhibits as “Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss” on October 20, 2025.
By Interim Decision dated January 21, 2026, I determined that the Appellant’s claim to teaching experience at the Massachusetts Fire Academy required a hearing. The Interim Decision also determined that the Appellant’s claim to non-fire science supervisory experience could be dismissed as moot because it amounted to 450 hours of experience which did not meet the minimum threshold of six months of such experience (pro-rated at the required 172 hours per month) to receive any E&E points.
The hearing was held on March 4, 2026 via remote videoconference and was audio/video recorded. I heard testimony from the Appellant and Elizabeth Belmonte, HRD’s Assistant Director of Test Development. Fourteen exhibits filed with HRD’s Motion to Dismiss were marked Resp.Exhs.1 through Resp.Exhs.14. Based on the submissions of the parties and the information provided at the hearing, I conclude that HRD’s Motion to Dismiss should be allowed and the Appellant’s appeal should be dismissed.
Undisputed Facts
Based on the submissions of the parties, the following facts are not disputed:
1. The Appellant is a Firefighter with the City of Melrose Fire Department (MFD). (Appellant’s Motion)
2. The Appellant was hired by the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy (Academy) on September 11, 2022 as a staff instructor. He advanced to the role of lead instructor. He teaches the following disciplines: Recruit training, Live Burns, Ground Ladders, Apparatus Ground Ladder Deployment, SCBA Inspection, SCBA Donning Procedures, Hose Advancement, Hose 1, Hose 2, Rapid Intervention Training, Saving Ourselves. (Appellant’s Motion; Appellant’s Testimony)
3. The duties of an instructor at the Academy are similar to the duties of a fire service officer. They include teaching, training, performing “company level debriefings” and grading recruits with “gigs” and written disciplinary reports for performance deficiencies. An integral part of these duties is to perform critical decision-making and life safety duties, including incident command decisions during live burn situations and roof operations to ensure crew integrity and safe practices by recruits and students. (Appellant’s Motion; Appellant’s Testimony)
4. The Academy employs approximately 400 instructors. The positions are open to any fire service personnel who have completed the “Pro Board Certification for Fire Instructor I”. (Testimony of Appellant)
5. The Appellant took and passed the civil service promotional examination for fire lieutenant administered by the state’s Human Resources Division on October 17, 2024. (Appellant’s Motion; Respondent’s Motion, Resp.Exhs.7 & 13)
6. The examination included three components – Technical Knowledge (TK) weighted 56%; Situational Judgment (SJ) weighted 24%; and Experience/Certification/Training & Education (ECT&E) weighted 20%. (Resp.Exh.4)
7. The ECT&E Candidate Preparation Guide for Fire Promotional Exams set forth the categories of education and experience that qualified for credit on that component of the exam and explained the process for completing that exam component by filing an on-line claim form with supporting documentation. The guide noted that the ECT&E component “is similar but not the same as the Education and Experience (E&E) component of previous exams.” (Resp.Exh.3)(emphasis added)
8. The ECT&E Candidate Preparation Guide contained the following information regarding Appeal Rights: “Per Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 31, Section 22, candidates have 17 calendar days from the emailing of the score notice to file an appeal of their ECT&E claim. No new type of credit can be claimed once you submit your Online ECT&E claim. An application may not be submitted after the deadline.Instructions on how to file an ECT&E appeal during the 17-day appeal period will be sent to all candidates in their ECT&E score notice.” (Resp.Exh.3) (emphasis added)
7. By email dated April 7, 2025, the Appellant received the following Notice from HRD:
Dear 2025 Fire Lieutenant (1YP) Applicant,
To submit a fair test review, or multiple-choice review, you must go to the civil service website linked below. Go through the application process, attach any relevant documents, and then submit. The deadline to submit a fair test review or item review is 7 days after the examination.”
(Resp. Pre-Hearing Memo, Exh.8; Testimony of Appellant & Belmonte)
7. The Appellant construed the April 7, 2025 “fair test” Notice to relate to the “overall fairness of the questioning in the exam . . . based on the literature from the [reading material] text . . . in the actual physical exam” components to be administered 5 days later on April 12, 2025, but “not the E&E points.” He believed that he would have 17 days after receiving his ECT&E score notice to appeal anything to do with the ECT&E component, based on the other specific ECT&E notices that he received. (Testimony of Appellant)
8. The Appellant submitted the ECT&E on-line application form within the April 19, 2025 deadline required to claim credit for that component of the examination. In that submission:
- The Appellant answered “No acting/provisional” to Q.5. Current Department Experience: Indicate the amount of experience you have as an acting, provisional and/or temporary after certification Fire Lieutenant in your current department.
- The Appellant answered: “No Experience” to Q.6. Outside Department Experience: Indicate how many year(s) of experience you have as a Firefighter in a department other than your current department.
- The Appellant answered “No experience” to Q.7. Outside Department Experience: Indicate how many year(s) of experience you have in a supervisory Fire Officer role in a fire department other than your current department.
- The Appellant answered “3 years” in response to Q.8. Outside Experience: Indicate how many year(s) of supervisory experience you have outside the fire service. This includes military, maritime service and private companies.
(Resp.Exhs.7 & 14)
9. By email dated June 12, 2025, HRD issued the Appellant an “Official ECT&E Results Notice” which informed him that his Q.8 claim to 3 years of outside supervisory experience was recalculated to “No Experience”, based on the letter submitted by the Appellant from Hockey North America dated April 3, 2025 that indicated his experience for that company was as a part-time Scorekeeping Supervisor beginning in September 2022, stating that he had worked a total of 450 hours in that job to date, which (prorated at 172 hours per month) was short of the minimum six months of such experience necessary to be awarded any points in that category. (Resp.Exhs.8 & 9)
10. The June 12, 2025 score notice stated the following;
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 31, Section 24 [sic] the administrator shall determine the form of appeals and petition. To submit an ECT&E request for review, go to 2025 Promotional Exam Review. Please read the 2025 Promotional Exam Review application completely before submitting a review.
Your request for review and supporting documentation must be received by HRD no later than 17 calendar days after the mailing of this notice. No new claims for additional ECT&E points may be submitted at this time. Candidates may only provide additional clarifying information specific to an initial claim made prior to the original statutory deadline.
(Resp.Exh.9) (emphasis added)
11. On June 29, 2025, the Appellant filed an appeal with HRD contesting his ECT&E score, asserting that he should have been awarded points for his supervisory experience as a hockey scorekeeping supervisor and disputing “the fairness” of excluding points for teaching experience at the Academy for which credit had been provided in the most recent prior fire lieutenant promotional examination in 2022. As to the issue of teaching experience, the Appellant stated:
I have been an instructor since 2023 . . . and submitted a letter from the Massachusetts Fire Academy to the Commission[sic] regarding such experience. The removal of [the question providing credit for Fire Academy teaching] and inclusion of other outside experience (i.e. question (15) Relevant Trade Licenses) categories is unfair to candidates in my position. Relevant trades should be awarded points, however, candidates who are active instructors in the Massachusetts Fire Academy should also be awarded any points in this exam. Please note, the 2022 exam carried points per courses taught and specified to candidates how to apply for said points. This exam did not. If the intent was to award instructor experience under question 6, 7 or 8, the instructions unfairly exclude instructions to candidates with instructor experience.
(Respondent’s Motion, Resp.Exhs.10 & 14)
12. By email dated July 24, 2025, HRD informed the Appellant that HRD “has undertaken a review of your specific appeal of the Experience, Certification/ Training, and Education (ECT&E) exam component. This appeal has been denied.” (Resp.Exh.11)
13. HRD’s July 24, 2025 notice contained the following notice regarding a further appeal to the Commission:
Pursuant to Chapter 31, Sec.24 of the Massachusetts General Laws . . . you may appeal to the commission from a decision of the administrator made pursuant to section twenty-three relative to (a) the marking of the applicant’s answers to essay questions; (b) a finding that the applicant did not meet the entrance requirements for appointment to the position; or (c) a finding that the examination taken by such applicant was a fair test of the applicant’s fitness to actually perform the primary duties of the position for which the examination was held. Such appeal shall be filed no later than seventeen days after the date of mailing of the decision of the administrator. . . .
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. In deciding an appeal pursuant to this section, the commission shall not allow credit for training or experience unless such training or experience was fully stated in the training and experience sheet filed by the applicant at the time designated by the administrator.
(Resp.Exh.11) (emphasis added)
14. According to the ECT&E Scoring Guide that HRD provided to candidates, the following examples illustrate the ECT&E experience points allowed in other categories of supervisory experience: Q.5 – 1 full month acting lieutenant time (2.71 points); one full year acting lieutenant time (8.01 points); Q.7 – less than one year full time supervisory experience in a fire service in another department (no points); three years full time supervisory experience in another department (6.15 points); Q.8 – less than one year full time supervisory experience outside the fire service (no points); three years full time supervisory experience outside the fire service (0.79 points). (Resp.Exh.5)
15. The Appellant’s name appears ranked third out of six candidates on the current eligible list for MFD Fire Lieutenant established on 8/1/2025. (Administrative Notice [MFD Fire Lieutenant Eligible List])
16. At the Commission hearing, HRD Assistant Director Belmonte explained HRD’s reasons for eliminating the category for Fire Academy teaching experience in connection with this examination. According to Belmonte, a review of prior fire service and other civil service promotional exams disclosed that only about 1% of candidates taking the last two fire lieutenant promotional exams (about two candidates per exam), claimed the prior “one point per course” credit in the Academy teaching experience category. The ECT&E component capped the number of experience categories and points that could be awarded as “we need to make sure that people are benefiting from these points. . . . It doesn’t make sense for us to continue to put that [Academy teaching] on the ECT&E exam.” (Testimony of Belmonte)
17. Director Belmonte explained that HRD performs periodic re-evaluations of the exam components, with the assistance of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), in addition to circulating surveys to all civil service fire chiefs in the Commonwealth for feedback on the types of experience that should be included in the ECT&E component. For the 2025 fire promotional exam, these survey responses were reviewed before finalizing the fire promotional exam ECT&E point schedule. (Testimony of Belmonte)
18. Assistant Director Belmonte also pointed out that the Department of Correction (DOC) promotional examinations involved different job descriptions and that the DOC exam E&E component was vetted by different SMEs and was not identical to the ECT&E component of the Statewide Fire Promotional Examinations. (Testimony of Belmonte; Administrative Notice [Favalora v. HRD, B2-25-049 (2/26/2026)])
18. Assistant Director Belmonte was not aware that any firefighter with a Pro Board Fire Instructor I certification was eligible to apply to become a Fire Academy instructor or that hundreds of instructors are employed by the Academy. She also did not know that Academy instructors, especially lead instructors, exercised supervision. She agreed that this information was significant, that it was a “good question” whether some form of “supervisory” credit for Academy teaching was appropriate, and said she would bring this information back to the SMEs for feedback. (Testimony of Belmonte)
Applicable Legal Standard
A motion to dispose of an appeal, in whole or in part, via summary decision may be allowed by the Commission pursuant to 801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(h) 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 Dept, 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
The undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that this appeal must be dismissed. For the reasons stated in the Commission’s January 21, 2026 Interim Decision, the Appellant’s claim to Q.8 outside supervisory experience with Hockey North must be dismissed as moot because it amounted to 450 hours of experience which did not meet the minimum threshold of six months of such experience (pro-rated at the required 172 hours per month) needed to receive any E&E points. After carefully considering the evidence and argument of the Appellant and HRD, I now conclude that, for reasons more fully explained below, the Appellant’s claim to ECT&E credit for teaching experience at the Academy also must be denied.
Section 22 of Chapter 31 of the General Laws prescribes that “[t]he administrator [HRD] shall determine the passing requirements of examinations.” G.L. c. 31, § 22, ¶1. According to the Personnel Administration Rules (PAR) 6(1)(b), “[t]he grading of the subject of training and experience as a part of a promotional examination shall be based on a schedule approved by the administrator [HRD] which shall include credits for elements of training and experience related to the position for which the examination is held.” Pursuant to Section 24 of Chapter 31, “. . . the commission shall not allow credit for training or experience unless such training or experience was fully stated in the training and experience sheet filed by the applicant at the time designated by the administrator [HRD]”. G.L. c. 31, §24, ¶2.
As a general rule, the Commission defers to HRD’s expertise and discretion to establish reasonable requirements, consistent with basic merit principles, for crafting, administering, and scoring examinations. In particular, in deciding prior appeals, the Commission has concluded that, as a general rule, HRD’s insistence on compliance with its established examination requirements for claiming and scoring training and experience credits was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. See Helms v. HRD, 38 MSCR 147 (2025); Bell v. HRD, 38 MSCR 44 (2025); Donovan v. HRD, 38 MCSR 60 (2025); Weaver v. HRD, 37 MCSR 313 (2024); DiGiando v. HRD, 37 MCSR 252 (2024); Medeiros v. HRD, 37 MCSR 56 (2024); Dunn v. HRD, 37 MCSR (2024); Kiley v. HRD, 36 MCSR 442 (2024); Evans v. HRD, 35 MCSR 108 (2022); Turner v. HRD, 34 MCSR 249 (2022); Amato v. HRD, 34 MCSR 177 (2021); Wetherbee v. HRD, 34 MCSR 173 (2021); Russo v. HRD, 34 MCSR 156 (2021); Villavizar v. HRD, 34 MCSR 64 (2021); Holska v. HRD, 33 MCSR 282 (2020); Flynn v. HRD, 33 MCSR 237 (2020); Whoriskey v. HRD, 33 MCSR 158 (2020); Bucella v. HRD, 32 MCSR 226 (2019); Dupont v. HRD, 31 MCSR 184 (2018); Pavone v. HRD, 28 MCSR 611 (2015); and Carroll v. HRD, 27 MCSR 157 (2014).
Timeliness
Section 22 of Chapter 31 prescribes the procedures and deadlines for administrative review by HRD of ECT&E (training & experience) claims:
. . . [A]n applicant may request the administrator [HRD] to conduct one or more of the following reviews relating to an examination . . . (2) a review of the marking of the applicant's training and experience . . .
Such request for review . . . of the marking of the applicant's training and experience . . . 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 . . . .
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.
G.L. c. 31, §22, ¶2-¶4. (emphasis added)
Section 23 of Chapter 31 provides, in relevant part: “Within six weeks after receipt of a request pursuant to section twenty-two, the administrator shall, subject to the provisions of this section, conduct such review, render a decision, and send a copy of such decision to the applicant. If the administrator finds that an error was made . . . in the marking of the applicant's training and experience . . . the administrator shall make any necessary adjustment to correct such error.”
The Appellant first filed an appeal with HRD on June 29, 2025, within 17 days of his receipt of the “Official ECT&E Results Notice” from HRD. The Appellant requested a review of the amendment to his claim to Q.8 outside supervisory experience as well as “the fairness” of excluding points for his teaching experience at the Academy.
The timeliness of the request for the marking of his Q.8 ECT&E experience claim is not disputed as it falls squarely within the 17-day window following the receipt of the score notice prescribed by the score notice and Section 22 of Chapter 31. The Appellant’s claim as to the “fairness” of excluding points for Academy teaching experience, however, is a closer question.
The Appellant knew, well before he took the April 2025 examination, that, unlike prior examinations, Fire Academy teaching experience was not expressly included as one of the categories for which ECT&E points could be awarded. Had the Appellant taken the necessary steps to challenge the “fairness” of this exclusion when he first knew of it, the review process (and subsequent appeal to the Commission) might have afforded an opportunity for reconsideration of the issue in time to avoid the sort of complications that arise here after scores are computed and eligible lists established and the promotional process begins. These complications are precisely the reason that challenges of the “fairness” of any examination must be made within seven days of the examination.
The Appellant argues that the notices he received about “fair test” reviews and ECT&E reviews are not entirely consistent and leave some room for ambiguity as to what rules apply to the type of challenge the Appellant is making (i.e., to the exclusion of teaching credits). The ECT&E Candidate Preparation Guide stated:
Per Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 31, Section 22, candidates have 17 calendar days from the emailing of the score notice to file an appeal of their ECT&E claim. . . .Instructions on how to file an ECT&E appeal during the 17-day appeal period will be sent to all candidates in their ECT&E score notice.”
The ECT&E score notice referenced in the Candidate Preparation Guide stated:
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 31, Section 24 [sic] . . . . To submit an ECT&E request for review, go to 2025 Promotional Exam Review. Please read the 2025 Promotional Exam Review application completely before submitting a review.
Your request for review and supporting documentation must be received by HRD no later than 17 calendar days after the mailing of this notice. No new claims for additional ECT&E points may be submitted at this time. Candidates may only provide additional clarifying information specific to an initial claim made prior to the original statutory deadline.
Neither the Candidate Preparation Guide nor the Score Notice makes any reference to the seven-day deadline in Section 22 for requesting a “fair test” review.
However, it is undisputed that the Appellant received the following notice five days prior to the examination:
Dear 2025 Fire Lieutenant (1YP) Applicant,
To submit a fair test review, or multiple-choice review, you must go to the civil service website linked below. Go through the application process, attach any relevant documents, and then submit. The deadline to submit a fair test review or item review is 7 days after the examination.
Pursuant to that notice, as noted above (fnt.2), the Appellant did file a request for review with HRD within seven days of the examination to question certain examination questions that he believed had not been appropriately covered by the reading material. At that time, he also had the opportunity to document his known concern about the “fairness” of the exclusion of Academy teaching experience, but he did not do so. Under these circumstances, the Appellant’s failure to take the necessary steps to assert a fair test review regarding the “fairness” of removing Fire Academy training from ECT&E credit justifies the Commission’s dismissal of that part of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The Appellant’s point that HRD’s current series of instructions about appeal rights is confusing, at best, and possibly misleading, is noted. Although, on the facts of this appeal, the Commission finds the statutory requirements controlling here, it would behoove HRD to tighten its notice of appeal rights, perhaps by including a more explicit section in the preparation guides and FAQs that provide more accurate, advance disclosure of the different statutory grounds for challenging examinations and how they apply to the various examination components. Specifically, the distinction between a request for review of the “fairness’” of the design or methodology of any ECT&E component ( which must be asserted as soon as that concern is reasonably known) and a request to review the “scoring” of the ECT&E component (after scores are released), is probably not intuitive to most candidates.
ECT&E Experience Credits
As previously determined, HRD correctly denied the Appellant’s claim to Q.8 outside supervisory experience with Hockey North, as the total hours he worked for that entity as a scorekeeping supervisor did not meet the minimum level of such experience required to earn any points in that category.
The Appellant’s claim to credit for his teaching experience at the Massachusetts Fire Academy raises a more substantive issue. According to HRD, the decision to exclude Fire Academy teaching experience as a category of credit on the 2025 statewide promotional examination for Fire Lieutenant (and Fire Captain), after allowing such credits on prior exams, was made intentionally and after a review by HRD and its SMEs. Specifically, HRD asserts that compliance with the decision in Tatum v. Commonwealth required HRD to undertake a thorough review of the public safety promotional examination components to ensure, among other things, that significant weight is given to a candidate’s relevant experience and proficiency in “real world” job-related scenarios, and candidates are not disadvantaged based on their relative ability to answer technical questions on a written or other structured test.
This mandated review led HRD to examine prior fire service promotional examinations before designing and administering the next series of public safety examinations following the Tatum v. Commonwealth decision. In the review of prior fire safety promotional examinations, HRD discovered that only about 1% of candidates who took those examinations claimed (what was then called) E&E credit for teaching at the Massachusetts Fire Academy. Based on this input, when HRD disseminated a survey of civil service fire department Chiefs for input on the categories that should be given experience credit in future promotional examinations, Fire Academy teaching experience was not listed as one of the categories and the responses did not identify Fire Academy teaching as a significant category that deserved experience credit. HRD, with input from its SMEs concluded that the limited number of candidates who might claim such credit did not warrant continuing the “one point per course” Fire Academy teaching experience in the final ECT&E claim form.
HRD’s explanation for eliminating the Fire Academy teaching experience category and prior “one point per course” credit from the redesigned ECT&E component cannot be viewed as per se arbitrary or unreasonable, although it barely passes the rationality test. When HRD made its determination, however, it did not seem to have knowledge of certain arguably relevant facts: (1) the duties of a Fire Academy instructor, especially a lead instructor such as the Appellant, entail most of the same supervisory and mentoring duties that a Fire Lieutenant performs as an apparatus crew chief or as incident commander at a fire scene; (2) the position of Fire Academy instructor is open to any firefighter who holds a Pro Board Fire Instructor I certification (for which ECT&E points are separately awarded); and (3) there are approximately 400 Fire Academy instructors.
Although it would have been preferable for HRD to have considered the additional facts presented by the Appellant in this appeal when determining whether to continue credit for Fire Academy teaching experience, this omission does not fully justify the Commission’s intervention in this appeal. Even if the Commission were to find that HRD’s failure to consider those additional facts turns HRD’s decision from a barely reasonable one into an unreasonable or arbitrary one, as a practical matter, the Commission cannot, on this record, determine what point credit should be awarded for such experience, which is a matter on which the Commission would defer to HRD.
Thus, the previous “one point per course” category may or may not be the appropriate choice, as it was for other post-Tatum examinations. However, some other separate category and point structure may well be more appropriate in these circumstances. For example, as HRD acknowledged at the hearing, it may be more suitable to integrate credit as a Fire Academy Instructor as part of the experience categories for hours spent in outside supervisory experience or as an acting supervisor, for which the instructor’s job also seems comparable. These decisions are best left, in the first instance, to prospective implementation after a more thorough technical review by HRD and its SMEs, subject to future statutory review by the Commission, if appropriate.
In sum, HRD’s decision to eliminate the Fire Academy teaching category and the “one point per course” experience credit on the ECT&E component of the 2025 Statewide Fire Lieutenant examination will not be overturned.
However, the Commission will expect HRD to review the issue of Fire Academy teaching credits in future promotional examinations with full consideration of the facts presented in this appeal—which do appear make a compelling case that Fire Academy instructor experience has a direct nexus to job of a Fire Lieutenant (and/or) or Fire Captain, and perhaps other senior fire officers, and certainly seems more relevant than other supervisory experience (e.g., hockey scorekeeper supervisor) for which HRD’s current ECT&E system allows experience credit.
Finally, the Commission will expect HRD to review the language in its appeal rights notices to ensure better clarity regarding the nature and timing of requests for review and, especially, more specific disclosure that the timing required for contesting the “fairness” of any future ECT&E component is governed by the “fair test” rules of Sections 22 through 24 of Chapter 31. The Commission reserves the right to revisit the reasonableness of such appeal notices if such improvements are not implemented in the future.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, HRD’s Motion to For Summary Disposition is granted and the Appellant’s appeal under Docket Number B2-25-184 is dismissed.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
/s/ Paul M. Stein
Paul M. Stein, Commissioner
By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney, and Stein, Commissioners) on April 30, 2026.
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:
Alessandro Colarusso (Appellant)
Nicole Boudreau, Esq. (for Respondent)
- The Commission follows the Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR §§1.00, et seq., in its adjudicatory proceedings, with Chapter 31’s provisions or any rules promulgated thereunder taking precedence.
- At the Pre-Hearing Conference, HRD confirmed that, as to a third issue raised by the Appellant’s appeal, he did receive full credit for his answers to questions on the written component, including receiving credit for three questions for which the Appellant specifically had sought a timely “fair test” review and that, after review, HRD agreed were ambiguous and corrected all candidates’ scores accordingly. That issue is now moot.
- A link to the recording was provided to the parties. If there is a judicial appeal of this decision, the plaintiff in the judicial appeal is obligated to use the recording to provide an accurate transcript, satisfactory to the court, to the extent that they wish to challenge the decision as unsupported by the substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
- The Appellant’s appeal submission to the Commission included two letters from the Massachusetts Fire Academy: (1) a February 2023 letter to HRD’s Civil Service Unit, attesting to ten courses he had taught at the Fire Academy; and (2) an August 2025 letter “To Whom It May Concern”, attesting to his employment as a Fire Academy instructor since September 11, 2022 and referencing two specific courses by name. Neither letter stated the number of hours the Appellant spent as a Fire Academy instructor. (Attachments to Claim of Appeal)
- The language in HRD’s July 24, 2025 notice tracks the version of Section 24 in effect prior to November 20, 2024. The current version, as amended by St.2024, c. 238, §§ 125 and 126, now provides for an appeal to “(a) the marking of the applicant’s answers to essay questions or training and experience sheet . . . .”
- I address this issue because the jurisdictional issue, which the Commission raised ab initio, is a close call, the merits of the Appellant’s claim were fully litigated, and because it informs the public safety civil service community about a significant matter of recurring importance.
- In this regard, I distinguish this appeal from the Commission’s recent decision in Favalora v. HRD, B2-25-049 (2/26/2026), in which the relief did not require creating an entirely new ECT&E category and a brand-new point structure in order to implement the relief.
- Nothing in this Decision prevents HRD, in its discretion andafter soliciting feedback from its SMEs, from considering whether to follow through with the possibility raised at the motion hearing to allow a one-time amendment to the Appellant’s 2025 ECT&E claim to include some form of additional points under another existing supervisory category for which he had duly submitted a timely claim (e.g., Q.8 – adding his teaching hours to his other documented outside supervisory time for which the Appellant had duly claimed up to 3 years’ experience, if that additional time would put him above the minimum threshold for at least minimum credit in that category) or, perhaps, Q.5 - acting supervisory time.
