On January 3, 2026, Timothy Hicks (Appellant), a police officer in the Boston Police Department (BPD), filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), contesting the following individual component score related to the promotional examination for police sergeant: ECT&E.
On March 3, 2026, I conducted a remote pre-hearing conference which was attended by the Appellant, counsel for the BPD and counsel for the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD). After the pre-hearing conference, the BPD submitted a motion to dismiss and the Appellant submitted an opposition.
Undisputed Facts
- The BPD entered into a delegation agreement with HRD to administer promotional examinations, including for sergeant and lieutenant.
- The BPD contracted with a vendor by the name of Morris and McDaniel (M&M) to conduct and score the examination.
- The examinations consisted of various components including ECT&E.
- The Appellant took the BPD sergeant promotional examination on December 20, 2024.
- Scores were released to the Appellant on August 20, 2025.
- After receiving additional points requested on review, the Appellant received a total ECT&E score of 18.81.
- After a standardization and normalization (S&N) process used by M&M, the maximum E/E component score was 19.01.
- The Appellant’s total examination score was 86.89.
- On September 15, 2025, the Appellant filed an appeal with M&M, contesting his adjusted ECT&E score. Specifically, the Appellant argued that he should have received more points for his supervisory experience in the military.
- On December 17, 2025, M&M denied the Appellant’s appeal.
- On January 3, 2026, the Appellant filed the instant appeal with the Commission.
- Over 30 exam applicants have filed appeals with the Commission contesting various aspects of the S&N process. The Appellant did not file an S&N appeal with the Commission.
- An eligible list for BPD Sergeant was established on February 13, 2026 upon which the Appellant is ranked 147th.
Relevant Civil Service Law
Section 22 of Chapter 31 states in relevant part that:
Except as otherwise provided by sections sixteen and seventeen, an applicant may request the administrator to conduct one or more of the following reviews relating to an examination: (1) a review of the marking of the applicant's answers to essay and multiple choice questions; (2) a review of the marking of the applicant's training and experience; (3) a review of a finding by the administrator that the applicant did not meet the entrance requirements for the examination; provided, however, that the administrator may deny such request in the case of a competitive examination for original appointment if, at the time such request is made, the administrator is currently accepting applications for a subsequent examination of the same type for the same position.
Such request for review of the marking of the applicant's answers to essay questions, of the marking of the applicant's training and experience, or of a finding that the applicant did not meet the entrance requirements for appointment to the position shall be filed with the administrator no later than seventeen days after the date of mailing by the administrator of the notice to the applicant of his mark on the examination or his failure to meet the entrance requirements for appointment to the position.
…
An applicant may request the administrator to conduct a review of whether an examination taken by such applicant was a fair test of the applicant's fitness actually to perform the primary or dominant duties of the position for which the examination was held, provided that such request shall be filed with the administrator no later than seven days after the date of such examination.
Section 24 of Chapter 31 states in relevant part that:
The commission shall refuse to accept any petition for appeal unless the request for appeal, which was the basis for such petition, was filed in the required time and form and unless a decision on such request for review has been rendered by the administrator.
Standard for Summary Disposition
The Commission may, on motion or upon its own initiative, dismiss an appeal at any time for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3). A motion before the Commission, in whole or in part, via summary decision may be filed pursuant to 801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(h). An appeal may be decided on summary disposition only when, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”, the undisputed material facts affirmatively demonstrate that the non-moving party has “no reasonable expectation” of prevailing on at least one “essential element of the case”. See, e.g., Milliken & Co. v. Duro Textiles LLC, 451 Mass. 547, 550 n.6 (2008); Maimonides School v. Coles, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 240, 249 (2008); Lydon v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 18 MCSR 216 (2005). See also Mangino v. HRD, 27 MCSR 34 (2014) and cases cited (“The notion underlying the summary decision process in administrative proceedings parallels the civil practice under Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, namely, when no genuine issues of material fact exist, the agency is not required to conduct a meaningless hearing.”); Morehouse v. Weymouth Fire Dep’t, 26 MCSR 176 (2013) (“a party may move for summary decision when . . . there is no genuine issue of fact relating to his or her claim or defense and the party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law”).
Analysis
The BPD argues that, assuming all the evidence in the light most favorable to the Appellant, the highest score he could have achieved on the ECT&E component was 19.01. Assuming arguendo that the Appellant were entitled to this maximum score, the BPD argues that his overall score would change to 87.09, which would not change his rank on the eligible list, making the Appellant’s appeal moot according to the BPD.
The Appellant argues that “If the Appellant’s (prior) appeal outcomes had been incorporated into the S&N process at the time it was conducted, the maximum E&E score could have been different, which directly affects the inaccurate reasoning that the appeal is moot. Thus, the conclusion that ‘there is no possibility that the Appellant’s whole score would increase if he were to prevail in this appeal’ is based on a timeline that does not accurately reflect how the Appellant’s score was determined.” The Appellant goes on to argue that “ … if the Appellant’s appeal outcomes had been incorporated into the S&N process at the time it was conducted, the maximum score could have been different … ”.
The Appellant’s argument that the post-S&N score for all exam applicants could have exceeded 19.01 based on the timing of when his appeal was processed by M&M – and that his score would have exceeded 19.01 – is highly speculative and contrary to common sense. The Appellant has no reasonable expectation of showing that prevailing in this appeal would increase his total score by enough to impact his standing on the eligible list for BPD police sergeant. For this reason, his appeal should be dismissed.
Conclusion
The Appellant’s appeal docketed under Docket Number B2-26-008 is hereby dismissed based on mootness.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
/s/ Christopher Bowman
Christopher C. Bowman
Chair
By a vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners) on April 16, 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:
Timothy Hicks (Appellant)
Joseph McClellan, Esq. (for BPD)
Nicole Boudreau, Esq. (HRD)
