Decision  Monahan, Keith v. Boston Police Department & HRD 6/11/26

Date:	06/11/2026
Organization:	Civil Service Commission
Docket Number:	B2-25-300

• Appearance for Appellant: Keith Monahan
• Appearance for Respondent: Joseph McClellan, Esq.
• Hearing Officer: Christopher C. Bowman

The Commission dismissed as untimely the fair test appeal of a candidate who took the Boston Police Lieutenant examination; also because he had no reasonable expectation of showing that requiring answers to be recorded in the final answer booklet was arbitrary or capricious. 

Decision

On December 21, 2025, the Appellant, Keith Monahan, (Appellant), a police sergeant for the Boston Police Department (BPD), filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), contesting whether the way in which the in-basket component of a lieutenant promotional exam was scored was fair (a fair test appeal). 

On February 10, 2026, I, along with the Commission’s Deputy General Counsel, held a remote pre-hearing conference which was attended by the Appellant and co-counsel for the BPD.   I subsequently issued a Procedural Order and received additional information from the parties. 

Facts / Chronology of Relevant Events 

1. The BPD entered into a delegation agreement with the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) to administer promotional examinations. 
2. The BPD contracted with a vendor by the name of Morris and McDaniel (M&M) to conduct and score the examination. 
3. On March 13, 2025, the Appellant sat for the in-basket portion of the promotional examination.
4. As part of the in-basket examination, candidates were given an “exam booklet” and an “answer booklet”.   The written instructions to all candidates stated that, while candidates could write in their exam booklets, their final answers must be recorded in the answer booklet and that only the answer booklet responses would be graded. 
5. After the March 13, 2025 in-basket exercise, the Appellant filed a fair test appeal directly with HRD, claiming that it was unfair to only consider the answer booklet given the large volume of information to include as well as the time constraints of the examination.  Rather, the Appellant argued that the vendor should consider both the information written in the exam booklet as well as the answer booklet when grading the in-basket portion of the examination. 
6. On July 31, 2025, HRD denied the Appellant’s fair test appeal and notified him that he had 17 days to file an appeal of HRD’s determination with the Commission.
7. The Appellant did not file a fair test appeal with the Commission within 17 days of July 31, 2025.
8. In August 2025, the Appellant received his score notice, obtaining a score of 85.51, which was comprised of the following components:  technical:  26.01; oral board:  22.03; E&E:  18.07; and in-basket:  19.4.  The maximum possible score for the in-basket exercise was 23.6. 
9. On September 3, 2025, the Appellant submitted another appeal, this time to M&M stating in part that: “I am once again writing to make a fair test review appeal on the issue that my test booklet was not also considered in the scoring process.”
10. On December 9, 2025, the BPD sent the Appellant a letter denying his second appeal.  That denial letter, attached to the Appellant’s appeal form to the Commission, appears to be disconnected from the issues raised by the Appellant in his appeal.  Rather, the BPD’s denial, instead of addressing the issues raised by the Appellant in his appeal (discussed in more detail below), stated that a “comparative review” of other high, medium and low scored in-basket exercises was completed, after which it was determined that his appeal should be denied.
11. As referenced above, the Appellant filed an appeal with the Commission on December 21, 2025. 

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 … 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 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 Appellant’s appeal must be dismissed as untimely.  However, even if the Appellant’s appeal were timely filed, he has no reasonable expectation of prevailing on the essential element of this appeal.  The Appellant did indeed file a timely fair test appeal with HRD within 17 days of the date of the in-basket exercise.  HRD denied that fair test appeal and informed the Appellant of his right to file an appeal with the Commission within the statutory 17-day filing deadline.  He failed to do so and, thus, his fair test appeal is untimely and must be dismissed. While the BPD acknowledged that the Appellant subsequently submitted another fair test appeal after later getting his scores, and they erroneously sent the Appellant a second denial, this administrative oversight does not toll the period of time for the Appellant to file a fair test appeal, which was 17 days after receiving the initial determination by HRD. 

Even, however, if the Appellant’s appeal with the Commission had been timely, he has no reasonable expectation of prevailing.  The Appellant acknowledges that he was instructed that, although he could use a separate booklet to write notes or a draft copy, only responses recorded in the final answer booklet would be graded by M&M.

Specifically, applicants were allowed to use the front side of two pages in the blue books for each answer, without skipping any pages. According to the Appellant, he wrote draft answers to the three questions in the separate exam booklet with the intent of recording the final version in the blue book.  After completing the answer for the first question in the blue book for question 1, the Appellant realized that he only had 15 minutes remaining and he had to rush to put bulleted, incomplete responses to questions 2 and 3 in the blue book. Also, the Appellant argues that, subsequent to his initial appeal, he discovered that, contrary to the written instructions, information contained on the back side of the answer booklet pages was considered by the M&M assessors, as long as the candidates did not exceed the two-page maximum (including the back-side answer).  For these two reasons, the Appellant argues that the Commission should order M&M to “keep” his score for the first answer recorded in the blue book and then re-score the second two questions using the responses the Appellant recorded in the draft booklet.

     The Appellant has no reasonable expectation of showing that M&M’s decision to consider information on the back side of the pages in the blue book, while not granting the Appellant’s request to effectively substitute, after the exam was completed, his draft answers in a separate booklet for the final answers in the blue book, was arbitrary and capricious.   Put another way, those two circumstances appear to be on starkly different footing.    Finally, the relief being sought here from the Commission—an order to grade question 1 from the Appellant’s final answer (or blue) booklet response and then grade questions 2 and 3 based on his draft booklet notes—would be highly arbitrary (in the sense of deviating from the norm established by examination instructions). It would also result in the Appellant enjoying an unfair advantage over other candidates who fully recorded in their official blue books complete responses to the same time-sensitive questions posed to all, a process that required skill in time management, organization and prioritization. 

Conclusion

                The Appellant’s appeal docketed under Docket Number B2-25-300 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 June 11, 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:
Keith Monahan (Appellant) 
Joseph McClellan, Esq. (for BPD)
Nicole Boudreau, Esq. (HRD)

1. On February 9, 2026, HRD submitted correspondence to the Commission mistakenly stating that HRD had no functional role in the matter underlying this appeal.