Skip to main content
Decision

Decision  Favalora, Dawn v. Human Resources Division 2/19/26

Date: 02/19/2026
Organization: Civil Service Commission
Docket Number: B2-25-049
  • Appearance for Appellant: Dawn Favalora
  • Appearance for Respondent: Michael J. Owens, Esq.
  • Hearing Officer: Paul M. Stein

The Commission allowed, in part, the appeal of a DOC Captain examination applicant, allowing credit for teaching experience as a field training officer and conditionally allowing additional credit for two specialty assignments, subject to reconsideration should HRD provide additional clarifying information related to how the subject matter experts decided not to assign credit for these assignments.  

Skip table of contents
You skipped the table of contents section.

Decision

On February 21, 2025, the Appellant, Dawn Favalora, then a Correction Officer III (CO III) (Lieutenant) assigned to the Lemuel Shattuck correction facility within the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) system, appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 24, after the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) denied her request for credit for certain experience on the Experience & Education (E&E) component of the December 14, 2024 DOC Captain promotional examination.

HRD and the Appellant both filed Cross-Motions for Summary Decision. By Decision dated June 26, 2025 (also marked App.Exh.10), the Commission allowed, in part, and denied, in part, both motions. HRD was ordered to adjust the Appellant’s E&E score to include credit for her time as the shift commander of the DOC Holding area, but not as the shift commander of shifts on her regularly scheduled patient unit. The Commission ordered an evidentiary hearing on the Appellant’s claims for her specialty service as a Critical Intervention Team (CIT) member, Informal Grievance Officer, and instructor teaching at the DOC Academy.

Prior to the evidentiary hearing, the Appellant was promoted to permanent DOC Captain  from the current eligible list, along with four other candidates. HRD moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing that the Appellant could not now claim that she was aggrieved by any violation of her civil service rights. The Appellant opposed the motion, claiming that corrections to her E&E score – which it is not disputed would change her overall final exam score – would have a material and significant effect on her seniority status vis-à-vis the other four promoted officers under the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement. This is because DOC uses civil service exam scores to “break a tie” and define seniority among simultaneously promoted officers. The Appellant argues that the derivative effect of a violation of her civil service rights is sufficient cause to allow the Commission to retain jurisdiction and hold an evidentiary hearing on the unresolved issues in this appeal.

By Interim Decision dated October 27, 2025, I denied HRD’s Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice, finding that the various novel issues presented by the Appellant warranted a full hearing. The full hearing was held over two days on December 8, 2025 and December 11, 2025.  Pursuant to a Post-Hearing Procedural Order, the Appellant submitted additional documents on December 25, 2025 and HRD made an additional submission on January 15, 2026 which included, in part, an “in-camera” filing of copies of the DOC Promotional Examination Survey and Responses.[1]

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Commission received 34 exhibits into evidence at the hearing (App.Exhs.1 through App.Exh.25; Resp.Exhs.1 through Resp.Exh.9).  HRD’s submissions pursuant to the Post-Hearing Procedural Order were marked Resp.Exh.10 [HRD 1/15/email re: DOC staffing], RespPHExh.11 [in-camera submission of blank survey form] and RespPHExh.12 [in-camera submission of survey responses].  Also, pursuant to the Post Hearing Procedural Order, I have taken administrative notice of certain documents filed by the Appellant during the prior motion hearings (AppMHRebExhs.4 [Shattuck Shift Commander], 5 [Framingham Shift Commander], 13 [Captains’ Union Shift Commander] & 14 [2024 DOC Captain Exam Posting]), which are also marked collectively herein as AppPHExh.26. Based on the exhibits, and the testimony of the witnesses:

Called by HRD:

  • Elizabeth Belmonte, HRD Director of Test Development

Called by the Appellant:

  • Dawn Favalora (Appellant)

and taking administrative notice of all matters filed in this appeal, pertinent law and reasonable inferences from the credible evidence, I make the following findings of fact:

Background

  1. The Appellant, Dawn Favalora, is a tenured DOC employee, who currently holds the position of DOC Captain. (Undisputed Facts; Testimony of Appellant)
  2. DOC Captains work as Shift Commanders at all major facilities on every shift, 24 hours a day. They are the highest-ranking staff member on site 16 out of 21 shifts a week.  The 2024 DOC Captain Promotional Exam position includes the following description of examples of the essential duties of a DOC Captain:

Under the general supervision of the DOC and specific direction of superiors, oversees and directs operations within the assigned DOC institution to ensure the proper and safe functioning of the institution. The duties include overseeing vehicle and mail searches, staff and visitor searches, inmate searches, building and ground inspections; write reports, review reports and documentation, manage incidents and maintain security, understanding use of force and when to implement it, oversee inmates, review inmate counts, manage inmate death procedures, coordinate inmate meals and transportation, manage discipline procedures, use inmate management system (IMS), manage payroll, oversee employee assistance unit, monitor rosters, training and counseling, respond to visitors, supervise staff, oversee daily operations, programming, and perform other related work as required.

(AppPHExh.26)(emphasis added)

  1. As a Shift Commander, a DOC Captain must be familiar with the following DOC policies and procedures, which must be reviewed monthly:

103 DOC 401 - Booking and Admissions

103 DOC 408 - Reasonable Accommodations for Inmates

103 DOC 501 - Institution Security Procedures

103 DOC 502 - Control of Locks and Keys

103 DOC 504 - Security Inspections

103 CMR 505 - Use of Force

103 DOC 506 - Search Policy

103 DOC 507 - Security Equipment

103 DOC 508 - Firearms

103 DOC 511 - Institution Tool Control

103 DOC 513 - Inmate Accountability

103 DOC 519 – Inmate Sexual Assault Plan

103 DOC 521 - Outside Hospital Security Procedures

103 DOC 527 - Security Risk Inmates

103 DOC 550 - Escapes

103 DOC 560 - Disorder Management

103 DOC 562 - Code 99 Emergency Response Guidelines

           103 CXMR 481 – Inmate Mail

(AppPHExh.26) (emphasis added)

  1. The Appellant took and passed the DOC Captain promotional examination administered by HRD on December 7, 2024, which included an Education and Experience (E & E) component, accounting for 20% of the total exam score.  [Undisputed Facts; App.Exh.10; Resp.Exh.2)
  2. At the time of the examination, the Appellant held the rank of DOC Lieutenant (Correction Officer III [CO-III]) assigned to the Shattuck Hospital Correctional Unit (SHCU), working as the shift commander on the 8 North Unit.  She also performed duties filling in as the shift commander of the DOC Holding Unit several days a week. (Undisputed Facts;  App.Exh.10)
  3. In addition to her regular duties as a shift commander, prior to the date of the DOC Captain’s exam, the Appellant also served for four years as a DOC Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) member and for 18 months as an Informal Grievance Officer (IGO). She was also a Certified Field Training Officer (FTO) who taught a course entitled “Field Training Practicum” to five classes of DOC Correction Officers after they had completed their formal training at the DOC Recruit Training Academy. (Testimony of Appellant; App.Exhs.4 & 5,10, 18-22; Resp.Exh.8; Claim of Appeal [attached DOC letters dated 12/2/24 &12/3/24])
  4. Prior to the due date (December 14, 2024), the Appellant duly submitted an E&E on-line claim form on which the Appellant responded “No Experience” to the following questions:

Q.7. Specialty Unit Experience: If you have served in any of the following specialty units [enumerated in the DOC E&E Preparation Guide] [2], indicate which unit(s) you served in. If you have not served in any specialty units, please select no experience.

Q.8. Specialty Unit Experience: Indicate how much time you have served in the specialty unit(s) previously selected. Please submit full documentation to verify time served. If you have served in multiple specialty units, please add the time together and select the total time worked below.

Q.9. Specialty Unit Experience – Training Academy: If you have served in the Training Academy specialty unit, indicate the number of courses you have taught in the Department of Correction recruit training academy. HRD does not credit teaching in-service workshops or classes. Do not count the same course more than once if you have instructed it on more than one occasion.

(App.Exh.21; Resp.Exh.3)

  1. The Appellant answered “No Experience” to the E&E Q.7 through Q.9. because she was concerned that only specialty unit experience in the eleven units enumerated in the E&E Preparation Guide could be claimed. She was also concerned that DOC Academy teaching experience appeared to mean “at the Academy” and did not cover the field training instruction she performed as a Certified FTO. She did not want to be subject to a charge that she was making a false E&E claim. (Testimony of the Appellant; App.Exhs.18-22)
  2. The Appellant reached out to HRD for clarification of these concerns but was informed that HRD did not provide specific advice to individual candidates prior to the examination and suggested that she submit her documentation and appeal any matters of concern after the examination. (Testimony of Appellant)[3]
  3. The Appellant did attach documentation to her E&E claim from DOC that supported her specialty assignments as an Informal Grievance Officer and DOC Academy teaching experience. (Testimony of Appellant; App.Exhs.10 & 18-22)
  4. The Appellant also made a written request for a letter from DOC attesting to her participation in the CIT program to “take this through civil service”. DOC declined to provide a letter because HRD had informed DOC that “CIT is not eligible for points” but “they were working on resolving language for the next exam.”  (Testimony of Appellant; App.Exhs.1, 2 & 10)
  5. After receiving her initial E&E score notice (on or about January 16, 2025), the Appellant exchanged several emails with HRD, beginning on February 1, 2025, in which she  requested an HRD review of her E&E score including, among other issues, the specialty assignment and teaching experience issues. During this exchange, the Appellant sought to amend her E&E claim to assert credit for that experience, as she had understood it was possible from her prior conversation with HRD (See Finding No. 7).  (Testimony of Appellant; App.Exhs.20-22; Resp.Exhs.4, 5 & 8)
  6. After review, HRD denied her claims and stated that all her scores had been calculated correctly.  (Testimony of Appellant & Belmonte; App.Exh.25: Resp.Exhs.5 & 6)
  7. This timely Appeal duly ensued. (Claim of Appeal)
  8. By Decision on Cross Motions for Summary Decision, dated June 26, 2025, the Commission allowed the Appellant’s appeal, in part, and ordered HRD to adjust the Appellant’s E&E and final exam scores to include credit for her extra duty experience as a shift commander in the Holding Unit, but denied her claim to additional E&E credit for her regular duty experience as a unit shift commander.  The Commission deferred decision on the Appellant’s claims to additional E&E credit for her CIT, Informal Grievance Officer and DOC Academy teaching experience, pending the full evidentiary hearing on those issues that was conducted on December 6 and 11, 2025. (App.Exh.10; Full Hearing Record, passim)
  9. As of September 21, 2025, the Appellant’s name appeared on the current DOC Captain eligible list established 2/15/2025, where she was ranked 9th, tied with one other candidate. (App.Exhs.10 & 23; Administrative Notice [DOC Captain Eligible List])[4]
  10. Effective September 21, 2025, the Appellant was promoted to the rank of permanent DOC Captain, along with four other candidates whose names appeared higher on the current eligible list. (Administrative Notice [DOC Captain Eligible List]; Appellant’s email to Commission dated 8/214/2025)
  11. According to the applicable DOC collective bargaining agreement, the relative seniority of DOC Captains who are promoted on the same date is determined according to the officers’ examination score on the DOC Captain’s examination. Thus, the Appellant’s examination score determined the order of her prior and future shift bidding rights and other benefits governed by seniority status as a DOC Captain. (Testimony of Appellant)

HRD’s E&E Component Design

  1.  The E&E component of the 2024 DOC promotional exams was developed under the auspices of Elizabeth Belmonte, the Assistant Director of Test Development in the Civil Service Unit of HRD, with the support of subject matter experts (SMEs), including DOC officers in the ranks of  Sergeant (CO-II), Lieutenant (CO-III) and Captain (aka CO-IV) who are familiar with the job requirements and duties of DOC correction officers.  (Testimony of Belmonte)
  2. With the assistance of the SMEs, HRD developed a “2024 Correction Promotional E&E Survey” form for the purpose of obtaining “data that will inform the Education & Experience (E&E) component of the promotional exam for Correction Officers II, III, and IV.”  HRD does not have the expertise to make such decisions in-house. (Testimony of Belmonte; RespPHExh.11)
  3. The survey form included a series of questions about the experience of the survey responder (e.g., DOC rank, years of experience with the DOC and number of DOC officers under the responder’s supervision). (Testimony of Belmonte; RespPHExh.11)
  4. The survey did not require the name or other personal information (other than gender and ethnicity) of the responder. (Testimony of Belmonte; Resp.PHExh.11)
  5. One section of the survey form addressed the subject of “potential specialty areas, units and jobs that a CO could work” and requested that the responder specify “how important experience in each area, unit or job is to the performance of you [sic] current job and rank [i.e., “0 Not Important” , “1 Somewhat Important”, or “2 Very Important”].”  The survey form listed seventeen choices and provided a text box to enter any other “area, unit or job for which prior experience in that position is helpful for the performance of your current job and rank that does not appear on the list above, [then] please provide that area, unit or job with a 0 to 2 rating of the area, unit or job.” (Testimony of Belmonte; Respondent Exh.11)[5]
  6. HRD sent out the survey form via an on-line DOC intranet posting.  (Testimony of Belmonte; Resp.Exh.1)
  7. The Appellant was not one of the officers who responded to the survey.  According to the Appellant, the on-line intranet system used to transmit the survey form was not consistently available to or used by all DOC superior officers. (Testimony of Appellant)
  8. HRD received 161 responses to the survey form. Twenty-five (25) of 77 permanent DOC Captains (32%) and 138 of 653 permanent DOC Sergeants and Lieutenants (21%) responded to the survey. (Resp.Exh.10 &  RespPHExh.12)
  9. The two assignments that were not on the enumerated list but mentioned most frequently as important by the responders were: (1) Critical Incident Response Team – seven responses and (2) IGC/IGO/Grievance Officer – five responses. (RespPHExh.12)[6]
  10. None of the responders mentioned the CIT. (RespPHExh.12)
  11. The SMEs met as a group (all Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains). Director Belmonte believed that four to six of the SMEs were DOC Captains, but she was not sure which ones, or how many Captains or Lieutenants actually attended the meetings. (Testimony of Belmonte)
  12. According to Director Belmonte, in order to qualify for E&E experience credit a specialty had to meet a threshold of 50% of responses that had indicated the assignment was important to the job of at least one level of DOC superior officer in order to be included in the final list of assignments that qualified for E&E experience credit. (Testimony of Belmonte)
  13. Based on the survey responses and recommendations of the SMEs, ten of the seventeen specialty assignments initially enumerated on the survey form were approved for E&E experience credits for all levels of promotional examination (Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains) and seven were not approved.  In addition, the Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) was added to the list of specialties approved for E&E credit at all levels. (Testimony of Belmonte; Resp.Exhs.9 & 10; RespPHExhs.11 &12)
  14. The DOC Captain E&E Score Guide provided that up to twenty (20) E&E experience points for specialty assignments (other than DOC training academy teaching) would be awarded based on the number of years served (in the aggregate) in such positions. DOC academy teaching experience would receive one (1) point for each course taught, up to a maximum of five (5) points. (App.Exh.23)
  15. My “in-camera” review of the DOC survey responses provided the following relevant information regarding the assignments that were included by the SMEs for consideration to receive E&E specialty experience credit, those that were selected, and those that were not:
  • 1 out of 10 responders (3 Captains, 6 Lieutenants & 8 Sergeants) reported that none of the 17 specialty assignments placed on the survey form by the SMEs were relevant to their jobs.
  • 5 responders (including one Captain) inserted the specialty assignment of IGC/OGO/Grievance Officer and described it as “Very Important” to their jobs.
  • 7 responders (but no Captains) inserted the CIRT specialty assignment as “Somewhat Important” or “Very Important” to their jobs.
  • 11 of the 17 enumerated assignments on the survey form met the HRD 50% threshold test (at least 50% of responders listing them as “Somewhat Important” or “Very Important” and thus were placed on the final list of approved specialties entitled to E&E experience credit: (1) Institutional Training Officer (ITO) – 86%; (2) Operations – 85%; (3) Inner Perimeter Security (IPS) – 81%; (4) Assignment Officer – 78%; (5) CNT – 66%; (6) Discipline Officer – 63%; (7) Armorer – 63%; (8) Tool Control Officer – 61%; (9) Office of Investigative Services (OIS) – 59%; (10) Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) – 55%; and (11) Training Academy – 66%.
  • 2 of the enumerated assignments on the survey form met the 50% threshold test but were not placed on the final list of approved specialties for reasons that were not fully explained: (1) Hearing Officer – 60% and (2) Fire Safety Officer – 59%.
  • 4 of the enumerated assignments on the survey form failed to meet the 50% threshold test and were excluded from the final list of approved specialties: (1) American Correctional Association Coordinator – 49%; (2) K-9 – 46%; (3) Communication & Video Operations – 43%; and (4) Honor Guard – 29%.
  • The CIRT, which did not appear on the enumerated list but was mentioned by 7 responders was the only addition to the list of approved specialties.

(Testimony of Belmonte; Resp.Exh.9 & RespPHExh.12)

The Appellant’s Position of Informal Grievance Officer

  1.  Section 38E of G.L. c. 127 requires that DOC establish and maintain “a fair, impartial, speedy and effective system for the resolution of grievances filed against the [DOC], its officers or employees, by inmates who are committed to, held by or in the custody of the department . . .”.  This mandate has been implemented by DOC regulation, 103 CMR 491.00 entitled “Inmate Grievances”. (App.Exhs.1 & 15)
  2. The DOC’s Inmate Grievance regulation states:

It is the policy of the Department of Correction (Department) to provide “every individual committed to its custody  . . . access to an internal grievance mechanism . . .  which promotes problem resolution and provides inmates with a means to address their concerns in a responsible manner, thus enhancing skills for successful reentry. The grievance process also provides Department administrators with a vital management tool by enhancing awareness of developing trends and specific problems, thus providing an opportunity to improve institutional functions affecting the prison environment.”

(App.Exh.15 [103 CMR 491.0] (emphasis added)

  1. The Superintendent of each institution within DOC appoints an “Institutional Grievance Coordinator” (IGC) who is responsible to coordinate an informal grievance resolution process at the institutional level, and “render all decisions on grievances”, subject to appeal to the Superintendent. (App.Exh.15 [103 CMR 491.05-491.12]) [7]
  2. The Appellant served as an IGC/IGO for 18 months while assigned to Shattuck Hospital which, if allowed as E&E credit, would add 3 points to her E&E experience score. (Testimony of Appellant; App.Exhs.10 & 18-25)

The Appellant’s Academy Teaching Experience

  1.  The Appellant holds a Field Training Officer (FTO) Certification as well as a certificate for completion of the “Training for Trainers” program. (App.Exhs.17 & 22)
  2. Pursuant to DOC Policy 103 DOC 215, all newly hired correctional staff [CO-I, CO-I (Cook), Correctional Program Officer A/B, Recreation Officer & Industrial Instructor] must participate in a Field Training Program (FTP) throughout their probationary period at their assigned institutions. The FTP is a “structured on-the-job training program designed to bridge the foundation knowledge, skills and competencies received from recruit training to the workplace environment, under the coaching and mentoring of Certified FTOs.”  (App.Exhs.8 & 9 [103 DOC 216 (4/23 & 4/25])[8]
  3. As mentioned earlier (Finding Nos. 4 & 8), the Appellant provided a letter with her E&E claim that verified she taught a “Criminal Justice Course in the Department of Correction Recruit Academy”, entitled “Field Training Practicum”. (Testimony of Appellant; App.Exhs.19-22; Resp.Exhs.4 & 8)
  4. At the Commission hearing, the Appellant explained that her duties as an FTO consisted of a program of “on-site” monitoring of five different classes of recent DOC Academy graduates assigned to her institution for a period of nine months prior to earning the status of a permanent civil service employee. Her responsibility involved weekly training sessions covering a wide range of DOC operations and policies which she estimated consumed approximately four hours per week outside of her regular duty schedule. (Testimony of Appellant; Administrative Notice [Mass. G. L. c. 31, §34])
  5. The Appellant explained that, to fulfil her duties as an FTO,  she was required to update herself frequently on changes in DOC regulations and applicable DOC regulations, policies and applicable law as well as the institution-specific policies and practices of the facility to which she was then assigned and serving as an FTO.  (Testimony of Appellant)
  6. The DOC Captain E&E Score guide provides a credit of one point for each training academy course taught.  The Appellant claims that each six-month training of probationary employees is worth one point, for an allowance of the maximum E&E training academy credits of 5 points. (Testimony of Appellant; App.Exh.23)

The Appellant’s Experience as a Member of the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT)

  1. Finally, the Appellant claims E&E credit for 59 months of experience prior to the exam date (from 12/19/2019 to 12/7/2024) as a member of the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) which, if allowed, would add 9 points to her E&E experience score. (Testimony of Appellant; App.Exhs.1-5, 10, 18-15 & 23)
  2. The CIT is a special operations response unit (SORU) within DOC’s Special Operations Command Group (SOCG), organized pursuant to Policy 103 DOC 559. At the time of the 2024 DOC Captain’s exam, SORUs also included a Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT), a Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT), a Communications and Video Operations (CVO) Team and a Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) (App.Exh.6)
  3. At the time of the 2024 DOC Captain’s examination, the specific mission of the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) was defined as follows:

Institution level employees recommended by the Superintendent and reviewed/approved by the CNT Coordinator/Commander for use in any situation that may necessitate crisis intervention. These situations include, but are not limited to, barricade subjects, hostage takings, attempted suicides, and/or any other disturbance that pose a threat to the safety of staff, inmates, and/or the public.

As of December 2024, DOC Policy 103 DOC 559 defined the CNT and CiRT as follows:

  • Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT) – A voluntary team comprised of specially trained intervention specialists, as directed by the Commissioner.
  • Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) – A voluntary team which provides the Department with a rapid response force in the event of a major situation within its jurisdiction and to provide emergency assistance to any Law Enforcement Agency within the Commonwealth, as directed by the Commissioner. (App.Exh.7)[9]
  1. The Special Reaction Team (SRT) first appears in 103 DOC 559 in the January 2025 revision. The SRT is described as unit of specially trained officers “consistent with the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA) requirements for a Tier II – Special Weapons and Tactical (SWAT) Team.” In January 2025, an Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Team was also added.  (App.Exh.6)
  2. CIT members are located in all DOC facilities and serve as the initial, and often only, responders needed to intervene and de-escalate a crisis situation. CNT and CIRT teams are dispatched to any DOC facility when needed to support the institutional responders and staff. According to the Appellant, she has been called out as a CIT team member to address crisis intervention situations at her assigned institution significantly more often than CNT or CIRT teams are dispatched there. (Testimony of Appellant)
  3. The minimum qualifications to become a CIT or CNT team member have been substantially comparable (both must have a minimum of 3 years’ experience with the DOC, be able to withstand mental and physical stress and have a working knowledge of emergency response and disorder management procedures).  CIT members must have completed 40 hours of Crisis Intervention Team Training (as of January 2025, in accordance with the Crisis intervention Team International training standards); CNT members must complete 40-hour Crisis Negotiator Team Training (as of January 2025, in accordance with NTOA’s standards for a Tier I-CNT). CNT members must also complete 40 hours of annual refresher training; CIT members have a minimum annual refresher training requirement of 8 hours which can include “cross-training” with CNT members. (App.Exhs.6 -8)[10]

Section 22 of Chapter 31 of the General Laws prescribes that “[t]he administrator [HRD] shall determine the passing requirements of examinations.” According to the Personnel Administration Rules (PAR) 6(1)(b), “[t]he grading of the subject of training and experience [i.e. E&E component] 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.”  Upon timely request (generally within seventeen days after a candidate’s receipt of examination scores), HRD shall conduct a review of the marking of a candidate’s  E&E component of a promotional examination and render a decision within six weeks of the request. G.L. c. 31, §22, ¶¶2 & 3; G.L. c. 31, §23.

Section 24 of Chapter 31 provides:

An applicant 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 or training and experience sheet; (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 or dominant 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 determine the form of the petition for appeal, provided that the petition shall include a brief statement of the allegations presented to the administrator for review. After acceptance of such an appeal, the commission shall conduct a hearing and, shall forthwith render a decision, and send a copy of such decision to the applicant and 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.

G.L. c. 31, § 24, as amended by St.2024, c. 238, §§ 126 & §126.

The Commission repeatedly has held that consistency and equal treatment are fundamental as important hallmarks of the basic merit principles under civil service law. DiGiando v. HRD, 37 MCSR 252 (2024). The Commission generally has deferred 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); 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).

Although the Commission rarely exercises the authority to overrule HRD’s decisions in matters of examinations, as arbitrary or unreasonable, rarely does not mean never. See, e.g., Ziobro v. HRD, 38 MCSR 236 (2025); Cote v. HRD, 39 MCSR 164 (2025); Rubeski v. HRD, 37 MCSR 298 (2024); Silva v. HRD, 35 MCSR 132 (2022); Callahan v. HRD, 34 MCSR 225 (2021); Naylor v. HRD, 31 MCSR 113 (2018), after full hearing, 32 MCSR 351 (2019); Clarke v. HRD, 30 MCSR 295 (2017), supplemental decision, 30 MCSR 410 (2017); K. Souza v. HRD, 29 MCSR 15 (2016); Wilbanks v. HRD, 29 MCSR 22 (2016), aff’d, CA 2016-0356 (Suffolk Sup. Ct. 2017), on further review, 30 MCSR 316 (2017); N. Souza v. HRD, 28 MCSR 624 (2015).

ANALYSIS

Jurisdictional Issue

A threshold question arises as to whether the promotion of the Appellant to the position of permanent Captain during the pendency of this appeal precludes the Commission from retaining jurisdiction to further consider her appeal.

HRD has renewed its argument, originally raised by Motion to Dismiss dated October 2, 2025, that the Appellant’s promotion to DOC Captain moots the alleged errors, if any, in the scoring of the E&E component of the DOC Captain’s examination.  The Appellant contends that she continues to be aggrieved by HRD’s denial of her claims to additional E&E credits under civil service law. She acknowledges that the change in the score would not have made a difference in the date of her promotion, as she was among the five DOC Lieutenant’s initially selected for promotion from the current DOC Captain eligible list. She claims, however, that the failure to duly credit her E&E points that she  should have received as a matter of civil service law has a direct, material and significant effect on her employment rights because her civil service score is used, and will be continue to be used, to determine her relative seniority under the applicable collective bargaining agreement among the five DOC officers who were all  promoted to DOC Captain on the same date as she was promoted – September 21, 2025.

Specifically, the Appellant argues: [A] further increase to my civil service score . . . might have opened up opportunities for placement beyond the facility where I received my promotion. To all being aware, overall civil service scores directly affect shift assignments and day-off bidding.. . . [E]ven a one-point increase to my score could elevate me above several individuals . . . all promoted to Captain at the same time but had varying time as Lieutenants. This change would directly impact my ability to bid for shifts, assignments, or transfers, making it a matter of real and ongoing importance. While I understand that a decision from this board may not be immediate    . . .  it would certainly affect all future bids and long-term scheduling.

HRD does not dispute that, if the Appellant should prevail on one or more of her claims, it could change her overall exam score and lift her position on the eligible list relative to one or more of the other simultaneously promoted candidates. HRD contends, however, that any consequences that may be realized by the Appellant because of the terms of the DOC collective bargaining agreement are not a matter of concern for the Commission, which cannot adjudicate collective bargaining rights.

I initially addressed this issue by the Interim Order dated October 27, 2025 on HRD’s Motion to Dismiss the Appeal as moot and determined to retain jurisdiction at that time. HRD has presented nothing that changes my analysis  that the Commission should retain jurisdiction to decide this appeal on its merits.

Public employees, including those at DOC, enjoy concurrent rights under Massachusetts Civil Service Law, G.L. c. 31, and, as members of a collective bargaining unit, others protected by the Massachusetts Public Employee Relations Act, G.L. c. 150E. HRD is correct that the Commission does not have the authority to construe the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, but the interface between these two statutes is not always a simple matter.

The Commission’s jurisdiction covers the enforcement of the civil service law as set forth in Chapter 31 of the General Laws and the rules promulgated pursuant to that law. The Commission is charged with the responsibility to preserve the rights of tenured civil service employees under “basic merit principles” and other statutory requirements prescribed  by the law.  See G.L. c. 31, § 1 & § 2.  Basic merit principles include “assuring fair treatment of all applicants “ and protection from “arbitrary and capricious actions.” G.L. c. 31, § 1.  A person "shall be deemed to be aggrieved . . . [by] a decision, action, or failure to act on the part of the administrator [HRD] . . . in violation of this chapter, [or] the rules [and/or] basic merit principles promulgated thereunder [when] the person’s rights were abridged, denied, or prejudiced in such a manner as to cause actual harm to the person’s employment status.”  G.L. c. 31, §2.

As explained in Thomson v. Civil Service Comm’n, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 462, 469, rev.den., 476 Mass. 1104 (2014):

When possible, we attempt to read the civil service law and the collective bargaining law, as well as the agreements that flow from the collective bargaining law, as a ‘harmonious whole.’ ” Fall River v. AFSCME Council 93, Local 3177,AFL–CIO, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 404, 406, 810 N.E.2d 1259 (2004), quoting from Dedham v. Labor Relations Commn., 365 Mass. 392, 402, 312 N.E.2d 548(1974). Where there is a conflict, however, as here, the civil service law controls as it is not one of the statutes enumerated in G.L. c. 150E, §7(d) and, therefore, may not be superseded by a collective bargaining agreement. Fall River v. Teamsters Union, Local 526, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 649, 651, 541 N.E.3d 1015 (1989). See Dedham v. Dedham Police Assn. (Lieutenants & Sergeants), 46 Mass. App. Ct. 418, 420, 706 N.E.2d 724 (1999).

Here, there is no issue of a “conflict” between the Appellant’s civil service rights and her collective bargaining rights. Rather, the Appellant’s position is that her collective bargaining rights derive from her civil service rights — that is, the priority granted to her in shift assignments turns on what she is entitled to have been allowed in E&E credits under civil service law. I am not aware of any direct judicial precedent on point but I am persuaded that there is good reason to conclude that, reading the two public employment statutes as a “harmonious whole”, the Commission is not divested of jurisdiction to adjudicate the Appellant’s claims to have been wrongfully denied E&E credits under civil service law merely because she has now duly been promoted from the eligible list.

This conclusion must be narrowly construed to be applicable to the specific facts of this appeal.  In particular,  this Decision involves the retention of jurisdiction over a timely filed civil service examination appeal concerning the proper scoring of E&E civil service examination points that is relevant to the application of undisputed terms in collective bargaining agreement. It does not mean that the Commission may take original jurisdiction or otherwise entertain an appeal that requires the adjudication of disputed terms or interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, save for disputes as to whether the collective bargaining agreement conflicts with civil service law.

E&E Credit for IGC/IGO Specialty Experience

The preponderance of the evidence that I find credible establishes that HRD’s denial of the Appellant’s claim to E&E credit as an IGC/IGO was unreasonable.

First, DOC’s Inmate Grievance program is a statutory mandate.   The program serves a critical function designed to promote inmate rehabilitation and reentry, a core part of DOC’s mission.  The grievance process serves as a “vital management tool by enhancing awareness of developing trends and specific problems, thus providing an opportunity to improve institutional functions affecting the prison environment.” 103 CMR 491.0 (emphasis added). Insofar as HRD has concluded that the Appellant’s role as the coordinator and first-level hearing officer for a program that is a “vital management tool” adds little or no value to her role as a Shift Commander and senior officer on duty, with overall responsibility for the daily care and custody of all inmates on her watch, such as the conclusion is unreasonable and unsupported by the credible evidence in this record.

Second, in the absence of a percipient witness’s explanation, I cannot reconcile the exclusion of such a “vital management tool” from the enumerated specialty assignments that were initially selected by the SMEs to be included in the E&E survey of DOC officers when such other ancillary assignments were included, including four out of the seventeen enumerated assignments that failed HRD’s 50% threshold test for relevance. My conclusion is reinforced by the fact that five survey responders volunteered the IGC/IGO assignment as relevant, the second most mentioned add-on to the enumerated list, behind the CIRT.  I discount HRD’s arguments that the IGO/IGC position did not meet the 50% threshold test, as it is merely speculative whether it would have done so  if it had been included as one of the enumerated survey assignments, considering that a significant number of responders found other enumerated assignments (even some eventually excluded from the final cut) to be of at least “some importance” [Hearing Officer (60%), Fire Safety Office (59%),  American Correctional Association Coordinator (49%), K-9 officer (45%) and Communications & Video Operations (43%)].  Moreover, as noted below, the CIRT was placed on the final list, not because it met the 50% test (which it did not), but based on the seven responders (but no Captains) who mentioned that specialty as an add-on. Yet the IGO/IGC, which received five add-in comments, did not. Without credible evidence to explain these discrepancies, I give relatively little weight to HRD’s continued reliance upon appeal on the 50% “cut point” rationale.

Third, I do not credit HRD’s argument that the Appellant’s claim must be denied because her E&E claim form did not include a claim for IGC/IGO credit and instead answered “No Experience” to the questions about specialty assignments (Q.7 & Q.8).  The Appellant plausibly explained that she did not specify IGC/IGO experience because there was no place to make such a claim on the form and the assignment was not one of those specialties specified in the preparation guide as an approved specialty.  She did, however, include documentary support for the claim and asserted the claim in a timely fashion when requesting an HRD review after receiving her E&E score, as she had understood from HRD staff (who regularly declines to give individual candidates any pre-exam substantive advice) to be the procedure she needed to follow.[11]

In sum, the Appellant met her burden to establish by a preponderance of evidence that HRD’s denial of Q.7 & Q8 credit for her IGC/IGO specialty assignment experience was unreasonable and arbitrary.

E&E Credit for DOC Academy Teaching

HRD now asserts that the Appellant’s claim to experience as a FTO teaching the DOC Academy “Field Training Practicum” must be denied because the Appellant answered “No Experience” to the question on the E&E claim form which asked whether she had any DOC Academy teaching experience. The Appellant explained that she did include a letter from the DOC attesting to her DOC Academy teaching experience but answered “No Experience” because the question seemed to be limited to teaching “at the Academy” and thus did not cover the field training instruction she performed as a Certified FTO. She did not want to be subject to a charge that she was making a false E&E claim.

The relevant E&E claim form questionnaire stated:

Q.9. Specialty Unit Experience – Training Academy: If you have served in the Training Academy specialty unit, indicate the number of courses you have taught in the Department of Correction recruit training academy. HRD does not credit teaching in-service workshops or classes. Do not count the same course more than once if you have instructed it on more than one occasion.

(emphasis added)

The wording of this question does leave considerable room for doubt about whether “on-site” training of DOC probationary employees is covered.  I doubt that the Appellant would have been accused of making a false claim by construing ambiguity in her favor and answering “YES” to Q9. I also conclude, however, that it is unreasonable to hold the Appellant responsible for honorably not doing so. Accordingly, I reject HRD’s argument that the Appellant’s E&E claim for DOC Academy teaching experience must be denied solely for how she answered the E&E claim form question while attaching the relevant supporting documentation.

The question remains whether the Appellant is entitled to five E&E points for teaching five courses or only one point for teaching the “same” course five times.

The Commission addressed a similar issue in the appeal of N. Souza v. HRD, 28 MCSR 624 (2015). In the Souza appeal, after a full evidentiary hearing, the Commission determined that HRD had unreasonably denied that appellant E&E credit for his work as a Field Training Officer, responsible for on-the job training of newly appointed Correction Officers during their probationary period, ostensibly because it was “in service” training that was not associated with a “recognized college, university, Department of Correction recruit training academy, or non-degree granting school above the high school level”. After hearing considerable evidence about the nature of the work the Appellant performed in teaching the new officers, the Commission determined that HRD’s distinction between “institutional” teaching and “in-service” or OJT field training of newly appointed recruits was not reasonably justified. The Commission then addressed the question of how many courses Mr. Souza was reasonably entitled to claim. Evidence showed that Mr. Souza had taught a course entitled “Field Training Practicum” to two groups of Correction Officers six months apart – Class 312 in September 2013 and Class 313 in February 2014. The Commission unanimously decided that, based on the evidence in that appeal, each separate course was entitled to 0.2 of a point for E&E teaching experience.

The facts in Souza are similar but not entirely on all fours with this appeal. The Appellant devotes two to four hours a week over a nine-month period performing each FTO “Field Training Practicum”.  Her work involved mentoring a group of newly appointed DOC Correction Officers  through their probationary period.  She provided instructions to each group tailored to the institution in which they worked. I am persuaded by the Appellant’s testimony that  her performance of these duties warrants E&E teaching experience credit. I have not been persuaded that the Appellant has proved by a preponderance of evidence that there are sufficient differences in the subject matter taught to each class of probationary officers to warrant separate E&E points  for each separate Field Training Practicum she taught. I also note that the number of E&E credits for teaching a course has been significantly increased from 0.2 points to 1.0 points. Thus, I find that, under the facts of this appeal the Appellant should be allowed one (1.0) E&E point for her Q.9 teaching experience.

E&E Credit for CIT Specialty Experience

The reasons explained in addressing the Appellant’s IC/IGO and Teaching Experience claims are also relevant to the Appellant’s third claim to specialty assignments experience (Q.7 & Q.8) credit for her four years as a member of the CIT.

First, I reject HRD’s argument that such a claim fails because the Appellant did not claim that experience in completing her E&E claim form.  As noted above, the Appellant answered “No Experience” to Q.7 & Q.8 because the on-line claim form did not provide any place to make that claim. She also sought documentation from DOC to support her CIT experience but was unable to obtain any because HRD had informed DOC that “CIT is not eligible for points” although “they were working on resolving language for the next exam.”  Thus, I find it unreasonable to conclude that the Appellant waived any right to adjudicate the right to credit for her CIT service simply because she honorably decided to answer the E&E questions literally.

Second, based the Appellant’s testimony and the documentation introduced in evidence that supported that testimony, I find that experience as a crisis intervention specialist is directly relevant to the duties of a DOC Captain who has overall responsibility for care and custody of all inmates in an institution as a Shift Commander; it informs both management of staff and control of inmates as to such critical functions as 103 DOC 505, Use of Force; 103 DOC 506, Search Policy; 103 DOC 513, Inmate Accountability; 103 DOC 527,  Security Risk Inmates; 103 DOC 550, Escapes; 103 DOC 560, Disorder Management; and 103 DOC 562, Code 99 Emergency Response Guidelines.

Third, I find it curious (and unexplained by the Respondent) that the CIT was the only one of the four SORUs that did not make the SMEs selection of relevant specialty assignments. The CNT (Crisis Negotiation Team), CVO (Communications & Video Operations Team) and HRT (Hostage Rescue Team) all made the initial enumerated list and the Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT) was added to the final list after it received seven mentions from survey responders.

Fourth, there are striking similarities between (i) the qualifications for becoming a member of the CIT and CNT and (ii) the duties they each perform, and few differences. Both SORUs appear to overlap functionally to address any situation that “may necessitate crisis intervention.” As to the CIT, those situations specifically “include, but are not limited to, barricade subjects, hostage takings, attempted suicides, and/or any other disturbance that pose a threat to the safety of staff, inmates, and/or the public.”  In practice, according to the Appellant, at the institution-level, CIT crisis intervention specialists are the first responders and are called up far more frequently than are the CNT members, who are dispatched from various locations as required and may take several hours to respond to the emergency. [12]

Fifth, HRD’s justification for excluding the CIT as a relevant specialty assignment rested solely on the “best practice” to rely entirely on the use of SMEs for such decisions. HRD acknowledged that it does not have the expertise regarding DOC operations to make such decisions in-house. Yet no SME was called to testify, either on direct or rebuttal.

Relief to be Granted

I recognize that the Findings and Analysis above regarding the relief provided to the Appellant are close calls. Accordingly, I recommend that the Commission issue the decision with a future effective date to provide an opportunity for HRD (and the Appellant) to submit further evidence from percipient witnesses to explain why the SMEs chose to exclude the CIT from the initial survey list, why the suggestion of five survey responders (including one Captain) to add the IGO/IGC as an allowable specialty was not sufficient (although the suggestion of seven responders (but no Captain) was sufficient to add the CIRT to the list), or any other explanation to rebut the Commission’s reliance on the evidence that the IGO/IGC specialty and the CIT specialty were unreasonably excluded. I am also mindful that, if relief is to be fair and equitable, if any adjustments are made to the Appellant’s E&E scores, equivalent adjustment(s) must be made to the four other DOC Captains who were promoted together with the Appellant if they had equivalent CIT, IGO/IGC, or FTO teaching experience.  Finally, any relief to be granted shall be applied prospectively only.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Appellant’s appeal under Docket No. B2-25-049 is allowed in part, as specified above, with a future effective date thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision. HRD shall:  (1) recalculate the Appellant’s E&E score (adding 12 points for Q.7 & Q.8 experience as a CIT team member and an IGO/IGC and one point for Q.9 teaching experience) and also recalculate her final exam score, effective prospectively only, and adjust as appropriate her place on the current DOC Captain eligible list; (2) make the same recalculations, if applicable, to each of the other four DOC Captains promoted together with the Appellant on September 21, 2025; (3) make appropriate revisions to the DOC promotional exam preparation guides and E&E claim forms to eliminate any ambiguity that FTO teaching of a field training practicum to probationary correction officers is entitled to E& E credit; and (4) make appropriate arrangements for the prospective consideration of CIT and IGO/IGC experience as allowable for E&E credit or, if excluded, preserve a clear documented record for doing so.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, the Commission will accept a Motion for Reconsideration, accompanied by an affidavit from percipient witness(es) that explain why the SMEs chosen by HRD decided to exclude the CIT and the IGO/IGC from the initial survey list; why the suggestion of five survey responders (including one Captain) to add the IGO/IGC as an allowable specialty was not sufficient (although the suggestion of seven responders (but no Captain) was sufficient to add the CIRT to the list); or any other explanation to rebut the Commission’s reliance on record evidence that the IGO/IGC specialty and the CIT specialty were unreasonably excluded from the 2024 DOC promotional exam. The Appellant may have 30 days to respond to such a Motion for Reconsideration. If HRD believes that disclosure of the identity of any witness would compromise the integrity of the examination process, HRD shall set forth those concerns within ten days of this Decision, and the Commission will schedule a status conference to consider appropriate steps to mitigate that concern. Thereafter, the Commission will take such further action, including but not limited to reopening the record, as may appear appropriate.

Civil Service Commission

/s/ Paul M. Stein   

Paul M. Stein
Commissioner


By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair, Markey, McConney, and Stein Commissioners [Dooley – Absent]) on February 19, 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:

Dawn Favalora (Appellant)

Michael J. Owens, Esq. (for Respondent) 

[1] The Appellant objected to the “in-camera” form of HRD’s post-hearing submissions.  I provide in this Decision the relevant information from those submissions upon which any findings or conclusion rely.  The Appellant’s objections are overruled. Nothing precludes the Appellant from seeking reconsideration of this Decision should she continue to believe the Commission has overlooked an important factor concerning the “in camera” submissions.

[2] The DOC E&E Preparation Guide enumerated the following eleven “accepted specialties”: Armorer, Assignment Officer, Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT), Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT), Discipline Officer (DO), Hostage Rescue Team, Inner Perimeter Security (IPS), Institution Training Officer, Office of Investigative Service (OIS), Operations and Tool Control Officer.

[3] This information is consistent with HRD’s practice to refrain from assisting individual candidates with questions about examination issues other than assisting those who are having technical difficulties with submission of claims or documentation. (Resp.Exh.9: Testimony of Belmonte)

[4] In addition to the recalculation ordered by the prior Commission’s Decision on the Cross-Motions for Summary Decision, as corrected, issued on June 29, 2025, the Appellant’s place on the eligible list as of September 21, 2025 also reflected a recalculation of her score for other reasons, unrelated to this appeal, made by HRD during the pendency of this appeal. (See App.Exh.10; Resp.Exh.7)

[5] The assignments specifically listed on the survey form included ten of the eleven specialty assignments eventually included as qualifying for E&E credit in the E&E Preparation Guide and seven others (Fire Safety Officer, American Correctional Association Coordinator, Communications and Video Operations, K9, Honor Guard and Hearing Officer) that eventually were not included as qualifying for credit. Neither the CIT nor the Informal Grievance Officer assignments were specifically included in the list. (RespPHExh.11)

[6] Director Belmonte testified that she believed the IGC/IGO was mentioned three times but my review of the post-hearing survey response summary provided by HRD showed that there were five responders who mentioned the grievance officer assignment as relevant. (Testimony of Belmonte; Resp,PHExh.12)

[7] The parties use interchangeably the terms “Inmate Grievance Coordinator” (IGC) or “Informal Grievance Officer” (IGO) to refer to this position.

[8] FTP training of new DOC staff is distinguished from annual “in-service training” required to maintain ongoing competency and meet specialized duty assignments. (See App.,Exhs.8 & 9 [103 DOC 216])

[9] In the January 2025 revision to 103 DOC 559, the term “voluntary group” was added to the definition of the CIT but its mission statement remained the same.  The January 2025 revision to 103 DOC 559 contains the same definitions of the CNT and CIRT, save for now referring to those team members as “appointed employees.” (App.Exh.6)


[10] Both CIRT and SRT members must meet additional, more rigorous, physical and training requirements. SRT members must meet all Tier II-SWAT Team requirements. (App.Exh.6 & 7)

[11] This conclusion is distinguished from my position regarding other appellants who declined to submit either a claim or documentation on a different E&E question about outside experience, where the form allowed for making that claim but the appellant unilaterally, and without reaching out to HRD staff, made no such claim.

[12] The mission of the CIRT was less developed on this record but it appears to require higher level (Tier I) training than the CIT and CNT and encompasses more high-profile crises which may involve deployment within the DOC and in support of other law enforcement situations outside the DOC.  The newly established SRT appears to be the highest level (Tier ii- SWAT  Team) responder). I infer that, given its mission, the CIRT and the SRT are the least dispatched teams of the four “crisis intervention” SORUs.

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback