On January 12, 2026, Christopher Miller (Appellant), a police officer in the Boston
Police Department (BPD), filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), contesting whether the promotional examination for police sergeant that he took was a fair test given a technical problem that took place during the oral board presentation component of his examination.
On March 10, 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). Prior to the pre-hearing conference, the BPD filed a motion to dismiss. After the pre-hearing conference, the parties, including the Appellant, provided additional information in response to the BPD’s motion and my requests.
Undisputed Facts
1. The BPD entered into a delegation agreement with HRD to administer promotional examinations, including for sergeant and lieutenant.
2. The BPD contracted with a vendor by the name of Morris and McDaniel (M&M) to conduct and score the examination.
3. The examinations consisted of various components including: Oral Board presentations.
4. The Appellant took the Oral Board component of the examination on March 25, 2025.
5. Within seven days of March 25, 2025, the Appellant filed a fair test appeal with HRD, claiming that he was not fairly tested due to a technical issue that occurred during his oral board presentations.
6. On August 29, 2025, HRD issued the Appellant a notice denying his fair test appeal. The statutory language regarding appeal rights, including the right to file an appeal with the Commission, within 17 days, appeared at the bottom of the letter.
7. Scores were released to the Appellant on September 10, 2025.
8. The Appellant received a total score of 87.81, which included an oral board component score of 25.86 out of a total 28.8.
9. On January 12, 2026, the Appellant filed the instant appeal with the Commission.
10. An eligible list for BPD Sergeant was established on February 13, 2026. The Appellant is tied for 98th on that eligible list.
11. A favorable decision by the Commission has the potential of adjusting the Appellant’s rank.
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:
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.
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 Appellant’s appeal to the Commission was not timely filed. Section 24 of Chapter 31 requires that fair test appeals be filed with the Commission within 17 days of an adverse determination from HRD. HRD has provided verification that, on August 29, 2025, they notified the Appellant that his fair test appeal was denied. Despite being notified at that time of his right to appeal the determination with the Commission within 17 days, the Appellant waited until January 2026, several months later, to file an appeal with the Commission, making his appeal untimely.
Notwithstanding that the Appellant’s appeal was untimely, I sought additional information regarding the technical problem that arose during the Appellant’s oral board presentation.
The crux of the Appellant’s appeal is that, during the second of three, timed-oral board
presentations, the exam administrators failed to start the timer which was supposed to
be displayed on the wall while the Appellant was giving his presentation. According to the
Appellant, he notified the proctors of this after he began but was told to continue without
the assistance of the timer being displayed on the wall. The Appellant argues that, if this
technical problem did not occur, it is likely that he would have scored higher on the oral
board presentation.
According to information provided by Morris and McDaniel, the on-screen timer froze
during one of the Appellant’s oral board presentations. However, according to M&M, they
immediately set a timer on their phone and positioned it so the Appellant could see it.
While they do not dispute that a brief variance in procedure may have occurred, they
argue that the issue was quickly resolved and that the Appellant was not “materially
disadvantaged” beyond the kinds of distractions professionals routinely encounter.
Even if M&M’s argument were not to prevail, there is an additional reason beyond
untimeliness that this appeal must be dismissed. The Appellant is asking that the
Commission issue an order increasing his overall score by .75 points or that the BPD be
ordered to consider him first if they reach his tie group on the eligible list. Such relief would
be based on speculation; be arbitrary and capricious; and unfair to the other exam
applicants. Had his appeal been timely, and had the Appellant prevailed in his appeal, the
only fair and equitable relief would have been to allow the Appellant to re-take the oral board component of the exam, which the Appellant has no interest in doing.
Conclusion
For all the above reasons, the Appellant’s appeal docketed under Docket Number B2-26-029 is hereby dismissed.
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 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:
Christopher Miller (Appellant)
Joseph McClellan, Esq. (for BPD)
Michael Owens, Esq. (HRD)
