Background
On July 23, 2026, the Petitioner, Dean Decas, a police officer in the Town of Wareham (Town)’s Police Department, whose name appears second on the current civil service eligible list for Wareham Police Sergeant, filed a request for investigation with the Civil Service Commission (Commission) regarding the Town’s decision not to fill a sergeant vacancy permanently from the existing eligible list upon which he is ranked second.
On August 25, 2026, I held a remote show cause conference which was attended by the Petitioner, counsel for the Town, the Town Administrator and the Town’s Human Resources Director. Prior to the show cause conference, the parties submitted position statements which were reviewed during the conference.
Relevant Chronology of Events
On November 12, 2024, the Town held an assessment center for police sergeant. Prior to the administration of that examination, the Wareham Police Union, Massachusetts Coalition of Police, Local 432 (union) had raised concerns that the Town was required to bargain over certain aspects of the assessment center. The Town chose to go forward with the assessment center and an eligible list for Wareham police sergeant was established on January 1, 2025.
On December 10, 2024, prior to the establishment of the Wareham Police Sergeant eligible list, the union filed a charge of prohibited practice with the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations (DLR) alleging that the Town had violated Section 10(a)(5) of Chapter 150E. Specifically, the union alleged that the Town had implemented an assessment center as its method of evaluating candidates for the position of Sergeant without bargaining to resolution or impasse with the Union over the decision to use an assessment center in place of the scoring procedures outlined in the Wareham Police Department’s Procedures Manual.
On March 25, 2025, following its investigation of the Union's charge, DLR issued a Complaint of Prohibited Practice finding probable cause to believe that the Town had violated Section 10(a)(5) of Chapter 150E. The Union sought, among other relief, a return to the status quo ante, including rescission of the assessment center and the resulting promotional list.
On April 2, 2026, the Town opted to forego further proceedings at DLR, and any final decision that may issue, and reached a settlement agreement with the union which included a provision that the eligible list that resulted from the assessment center would be used for provisional/temporary appointments only. Subsequently, the Town submitted a request to the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) to participate in the next traditional (non-assessment center) civil service examination for police sergeant, to be held in September 2026, with a new eligible list likely in January 2027.
Following the execution of the settlement agreement, two permanent sergeant vacancies have arisen in Wareham. The first vacancy was filled by promoting the first ranked candidate on the existing (assessment center-related) eligible list to temporary police sergeant.
It is the second vacancy that has triggered the Petitioner’s request for investigation. [FN1] The Town initially offered the Petitioner a provisional promotion to Wareham police sergeant, which the Petitioner refused claiming that the Town was obligated to fill the vacancy permanently. Then, after the Petitioner filed this request with the Commission, the Town decided to not fill the vacancy at all until the new eligible list is established in January 2027.
Thus, the limited issue before me is whether the Commission should exercise its discretion to initiate an investigation regarding the Town’s decision not to fill a vacant sergeant position until the new list is established in January 2027.
Summary of the Parties’ Positions
The Town’s most salient argument is two-fold. First, the Town, citing Somerville v. Somerville Municipal Employees Association, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 594, 596 (1985), argues that it is completely within its right to determine whether a vacancy exists and, even if a vacancy does exist, whether to fill it. Second, the Town argues that making permanent promotions from the eligible list risked having an order from DLR to return to the status quo ante, invalidating the list and placing the promotions made thereunder in jeopardy.
The Petitioner argues that any order from DLR cannot and could not supersede the civil service law; that the Town has retaliated against him after he filed his Petition with the Commission; the existing eligible list is valid; and, broadly, that the Town’s decision not to fill a permanent vacancy via a permanent promotion from the current, valid eligible list has resulted in him being an aggrieved person.
Commission’s Authority to Conduct Investigations
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 commits to the Commission's sole discretion whether to initiate an investigation and, if so, the nature and scope of that investigation. In exercising that discretion, the Commission may consider various factors, including, but not limited to:
- whether the request presents specific, credible information suggesting a violation of the civil service law or basic merit principles;
- whether the allegations, if substantiated, would involve a meaningful impairment of civil service rights or basic merit principles, as opposed to a technical, trivial, or de minimis irregularity;
- whether additional investigation is reasonably likely to develop information material to determine whether a violation occurred;
- whether another statutory appeal or administrative/judicial process provides an adequate vehicle for resolving the issue.
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).
Commission’s Response
I have reviewed the request and the materials submitted in support of it. I recommend that the Commission not exercise its discretion to initiate an investigation pursuant to G.L. c. 31, §2(a).
To the extent that it may provide clarity to the Petitioner or the Town or other stakeholders to the civil service system regarding the issues raised here, I offer the following observations.
At the time the Town was required to decide whether to continue litigating the unfair labor practice charge or resolve it, there was meaningful administrative precedent supporting the Union's position. Most notably, in Town of Arlington and Arlington Police Patrolmen's Association, 42 MLC 97 (2015), CERB affirmed a DLR Hearing Officer's determination that the Town was required to bargain before implementing an assessment center as a criterion for promotion from patrol officer to sergeant.
Nor is this case controlled by City of Everett v. Commonwealth Employment Relations Board, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 (2022) (Rule 23.0 decision). There, the Appeals Court held that the City was not required to bargain over procedures used to select a Fire Chief, a managerial position excluded from collective bargaining under Chapter 150E. Here, by contrast, the assessment center was used to establish eligibility for promotion to Police Sergeant, a bargaining-unit position—the materially different circumstance presented in Town of Arlington, where the assessment center involved promotion from one bargaining-unit position to another. Thus, Everett did not eliminate the substantial legal risk confronting the Town after the DLR issued its initial determination.
The relevant question before me is not whether the Town would inevitably have lost had it continued litigating the unfair labor practice charge. Rather, it is whether the Town reasonably could have concluded that proceeding with permanent promotions from the disputed eligible list while facing an adverse DLR determination presented an unacceptable risk. I believe that the Town could – and did – reach this reasonable conclusion and that its actions here were not driven by any impermissible reasons such as political or personal bias.
The Petitioner's characterization of this matter as presenting a conflict between the civil service law and a collective bargaining agreement is also misplaced. The issue before DLR was not whether a collective bargaining provision could supersede a conflicting requirement of Chapter 31, but whether the Town had an independent statutory obligation under G.L. c. 150E to bargain before changing the promotional process for a position covered by collective bargaining. HRD's authorization of the assessment center under Chapter 31 and the Town's potential obligation to bargain over implementation of that process under Chapter 150E were separate legal requirements; compliance with one did not necessarily excuse compliance with the other.
Indeed, Town of Arlington involved precisely that circumstance: notwithstanding HRD's authorization of a delegated assessment-center process, CERB concluded that the municipality had a separate obligation under Chapter 150E to bargain over implementation of the assessment center for promotion to Police Sergeant.
I need not determine whether the settlement agreement could lawfully preclude a permanent appointment from the 2024 eligible list; it is sufficient for present purposes that the Town had a substantial and objectively reasonable basis for believing that continued use of the disputed promotional process presented significant legal risk.
More globally, given that the Town’s decision here was not motivated by impermissible factors such as personal or political favoritism, its decision not to fill the vacancy at this time is consistent with the principle recognized in Somerville that the appointing authority retains the authority to determine whether a vacancy should be filled at all, either permanently or temporarily.
Finally, the timing of the Town's decision warrants consideration. However, the materials submitted provide an apparent non-retaliatory explanation for that timing. Before filing his request with the Commission, the Town had offered the Petitioner a provisional (or temporary) promotion consistent with its settlement with the Union. After the Petitioner declined that appointment and challenged the Town's decision not to make a permanent promotion from the disputed list, the Town chose not to make any further appointment from that list pending establishment of a new list. On this record, there is insufficient evidence of retaliatory motive to warrant the Commission's exercise of its discretionary investigative authority.
Civil Service Commission
Christopher C. Bowman
Christopher C. Bowman
Chair
On September 17, 2026, the Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners) 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.
Notice to:
Dean Decas (Petitioner)
Joseph A. Emerson, Jr., Esq. (for Town of Wareham)
- As part of the Show Cause Conference, the Town acknowledged that it had not petitioned HRD to revoke the existing eligible list; tacitly acknowledged that a provisional promotion may not be permissible; and that any promotion to Decas would be a “temporary” promotion, which Mr. Decas has confirmed he would also not accept. I need not resolve whether the settlement agreement legally affected the continuing validity of the 2024 eligible list. That issue is unnecessary to resolve this request for investigation.
