| Date: | 10/01/2026 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Civil Service Commission |
| Docket Number: | I-26-168 |
The Commission denied the request of a Framingham Fire Lieutenant to investigate the City’s decision to terminate her temporary promotional appointment to Fire Captain upon the expiration of the eligible list on which she had been ranked first.
On July 1, 2026, the Petitioner, Susanne Crippen, a Fire Lieutenant in the City of Framingham’s Fire Department, whose name appeared first on an expiring civil service eligible list for Framingham Fire Captain, filed a request for investigation with the Civil Service Commission (Commission) regarding the Fire Chief’s decision to terminate that temporary promotional appointment upon the expiration of that eligible list and the establishment of a new eligible list upon which the Petitioner’s name was not included.
On September 15, 2026, I held a remote show cause conference which was attended by the Petitioner, her counsel, the City’s Fire Chief and counsel for the City. Prior to the show cause conference, the parties submitted position statements which were reviewed during the conference.
A temporary vacancy for Fire Captain in the City’s Fire Department arose on March 11, 2026. The Petitioner, whose name appeared first on the existing eligible list for Fire Captain in place at the time, was appointed to the temporary position. A new eligible list for Fire Captain was established on August 1, 2026. The Petitioner’s name did not appear on the new eligible list as she had not taken the most recent Fire Captain promotional examination. The City terminated the Petitioner’s promotion effective August 14th and appointed the person ranked highest on the new eligible list to the Temporary Fire Captain position effective August 18th. At the time of the show cause conference, the Temporary Fire Captain position was set to end on September 29, 2026.
The Petitioner argues that she should have remained in the Temporary Fire Captain position for its entire duration (i.e. – through September 29, 2026), regardless of whether the eligible list from which she was appointed expired. The City argues that the Fire Chief had the discretion to end the Petitioner’s temporary appointment upon the expiration of the prior eligible list. Both parties rely in part on email communication seeking clarification from the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD).
The Commission, established pursuant to G.L. c. 7, § 4I, is an independent, neutral appellate tribunal and investigative entity. Section 2(a) of Chapter 31 confers broad discretion on the Commission to determine whether to initiate an investigation and its nature and scope. In exercising that discretion, the Commission may consider various factors, including, but not limited to:
These considerations are not jurisdictional prerequisites or an evidentiary burden imposed upon a petitioner; rather, they are among the nonexclusive factors the Commission may consider in exercising the discretion conferred upon it by G.L. c. 31, §2(a).
I recommend that the Commission not exercise its discretion to initiate an investigation pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 2(a), given the individualized nature of the dispute, the limited remaining duration of the temporary vacancy, the absence of evidence of systemic misconduct or personal or political bias, and the Fire Chief’s prior consultation with HRD concerning the issue.
To the extent that it may provide clarity to the Petitioner or the City or other stakeholders in the civil service system regarding the issues raised here, I offer the following observations.
Existing Commission precedent recognizes substantial appointing authority discretion concerning whether and how to fill vacancies and confirms that placement on an eligible list does not create a vested right to promotion. Those decisions, however, do not appear to resolve the narrower question presented here concerning termination of an existing temporary promotional appointment upon establishment of a new eligible list.
The authorities reviewed do not appear to provide a direct answer. Because I am recommending that the Commission decline to exercise its discretionary investigative authority in these circumstances, it is unnecessary to resolve that statutory question here. HRD has interpreted the matter as discretionary, but the statute leaves room for the Petitioner’s contrary argument. Specifically, Section 1 of Chapter 31 defines a temporary employee as:
“a person who is employed in a civil service position, after a civil service appointment, for a specified period of time or for the duration of a temporary vacancy.”
To the extent the temporary appointee is not informed at the time of the temporary appointment of any established practice or condition under which the temporary appointment may end before the underlying vacancy concludes, there would be a plausible argument that the employee should retain the temporary promotion for the duration of the temporary vacancy. Providing such information at the outset would also promote transparency and reduce the potential for subjective decision-making inconsistent with basic merit principles.
Civil Service Commission
Christopher C. Bowman
Christopher C. Bowman
Chair
On October 1, 2026, the Commission (Bowman, Chair; Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners [Dooley – Absent]) voted to accept the recommendation of the Chair and deny the Petitioner’s request for investigation.
This Response does not constitute an adjudication of the merits of the allegations presented.