On December 10, 2025, the Appellant, Charles Moore, a Police Sergeant with the Boston Police Department (BPD), appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 24, after the BPD denied his claims for certain experience credits on the Education and Experience (E&E) component of the BPD Police Lieutenant Exam. [FN1] I held a remote pre-hearing conference on January 13, 2026. Pursuant to Procedural Order dated January 21, 2026, as amended, the Appellant filed a Supplemental Pre-Hearing Memorandum dated February 20, 2026; BPD filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 27, 2026, which was supplemented on March 31, 2026; the Appellant filed a Motion for Summary Decision on March 27, 2026 and an Objection to BPD’s Motion to Dismiss on March 31, 2026. After careful review of the submissions of the parties, BPD’s Motion is allowed, the Appellant’s Motion is denied, and the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
Undisputed Facts
Based on the submissions of the parties and the documents attached thereto and referenced below, the following material facts are not disputed:
- The Appellant, Charles Moore, is a Police Sergeant with the BPD. (Undisputed Facts; BPD Motion)
- The Appellant took the 2024 BPD Police Lieutenant Promotional Examination administered by a vendor (Morris & McDaniel) selected by the BPD under a delegation agreement with the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD). The examination consisted of a written Technical Knowledge component (with a maximum value of 28 points), a Performance-Based Assessment Center (maximum value of 52 points), and an Experience and Education (E&E) component (maximum value of 20 points). (HRD/BPD Delegation Agreement; Candidate Orientation Guide; E&E Prep Guide)
- A Police Commissioner’s Memo CM-24-18, dated 4/9/24, entitled “2024 Examination Registration Announcement” informed candidates, among other things, of the appeal rights to contest the administration and scoring of the promotional examination:
APPEAL RIGHTS: MGL Chapter 31 §22 specifies the Requests for Review, otherwise known as Appeals, that candidates may submit. These include:
• Multiple Choice Item Reviews and Fair Test Requests for Review are due to the Human Resources Division (HRD) 7 days after the administration of the examination. To request a Multiple Choice Item Review and/or Fair Test Request for Review, submit a "2024 Promotional Exam Review" application that can be found through this link: 2024 Promotional Review.
. . .
- Education and Experience Reviews are due l7 days after scores are released. Information on how to submit an Education and Experience Review will be provided at a later date.
(Administrative Notice [BPD Commissioner’s Memo re: related appeal B2-25-360])
- The 2024 Promotional Review link stated, in relevant part:
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 31, Section 22 the administrator shall determine the form of a request for review. "Multiple Choice Item Reviews" and "Fair Test Reviews" will be reviewed if received no later than 7 days after the date of the examination. A "Fair Test Review" is conducted when an applicant requests Human Resource Division (HRD) to conduct a review of the fairness of a test. An "Essay Review" will be reviewed if received no later than 17 days after your score notice is received. Responses to all questions must be provided on this form with supporting documentation attached to this form.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 31, Section 24 the administrator shall determine the form of appeals and petitions. An "Experience and Education Review" (E&E) or "Experience, Certification, Training, and Education Review" (ECT&E) will be reviewed if received no later than 17 days after your score notice is received. Responses to all questions must be provided on this form with supporting documentation attached to this form.
. . .
For Fair Test Reviews: Attach a document that specifies in detail why you believe this examination was not a fair test of the applicant's fitness to perform the primary or dominant duties of the position.
(Administrative Notice [BPD Promotional Review link re: related appeal B2-25-360])
- By emails dated 12/22/24, 3/3/2025, 3/8/2025, 3/25/25, and 5/15/25, candidates were reminded by the BPD Human Resources department of the instructions above for filing appeals from each of the various components of the 2024 promotional examinations. (Administrative Notice [various BPD HR emails re: related appeal B2-25-360])
- The E&E component required the submission of an on-line claim form setting forth the candidate’s claims to the points allowed for the categories of experience and education listed in the preparation guide and the claim form. The deadline for submission of the on-line E&E claim form was December 28, 2024. The E&E Prep Guide stated:
All claims will be reviewed based on the answers provided. NO CHANGES WILL BE ALLOWED AFTER SUBMISSION. Candidates will receive a confirmation email once their form has been successfully submitted.
[Q]uestions may be submitted in writing to EandEquestions@morrisand mcdaniel.com. Please include your full name, identification number and the examination in the subject line of any email sent. For example: John S. Smith 123456 BPD Sergeant. Please note: candidates may NOT email Morris & McDaniel or BPD to change any portion of their E&E claim once they have submitted. All submissions are final.
(E&E Prep Guide)
- One of the categories for which E&E points could be awarded included Supervisory Experience in a Non-Police Officer Role. The E&E Claim form stated: “Do you have supervisory experience in a private company?” The Appellant answered this question “NO”.
(App E&E Claim Form; BPD Motion)
- The E&E Prep Guide contained instructions for submitting a claim for Supervisor Experience in a Non-Police Office Role either: “on the External Experience Verification Form” or “Candidates may also upload [the following] supporting documentation for non-police positions:
- a letter on business letterhead with an original signature indicating start/end dates of employment.
- full- or part-time position - If the claim is for part-time employment, the letter must indicate how many actual hours were worked or the number of hours worked per week. This will be calculated under the prorated, part-time calculation (172 hour/month)
- supervisory responsibility with official duties listed. Duties include: Supervising staff and work processes, enforcing policies and procedures, monitoring employee productivity, and providing feedback, setting performance goals, assisting with scheduling, employee corrective measures.
- For documentation from a non-governmental company (private or non-profit organization), the tax ID must be included in the supporting documentation.
Please note: If a candidate owns their own company, they must follow the same guidelines listed for a private company.
All documentation listed must be submitted to support a claim of outside supervisor time in a private company.”
(E&E Prep Guide) (emphasis in original)
- The points awarded for non-police outside supervisory experience ranged from 0.8 points for one year experience, 1.6 points for two years’ experience, 2.4 points for three years’ experience, 3.2 points for four years’ experience, and 4 points for five or more years of experience. (E&E Prep Guide)
- The 2024 BPD Promotional Examination E&E component did not provide for points to be awarded for teaching experience, as had been the case in certain prior examinations. (E&E Prep Guide; App E&E Claim Form; 2014 BPD E&E Rating Sheet)
- The Appellant formed a private business in June of 2022 and, beginning in September 2022, he has contracted with the Municipal Police Training Committee (MPTC) as well as several regional police academies (including the BPD academy) and also at the collegiate level to provide law enforcement training and consulting services, including:
- Business planning, preparation, and development
- Contract negotiations and client meetings
- Classroom instruction and scenario-based training
- Lesson planning and curriculum development
- Development of in-person and online training programs and college-level courses
- Administrative responsibilities, including budgeting, financial oversight, recordkeeping, scheduling, quality control, and client relationship management
- Coordination and supervision of subcontractors, facilitators, and role players
- Travel, continued education, and professional training and development
(App PHM Supp w/EIN Letter & EVF Form)
- The Appellant does not appear to have any direct employees, but he states that he “exercised direct supervisory authority over subcontractors, recruits, role players, academy staff, and training facilitators from various police departments and ranks.” (App PHM & EVF Form)
- By email dated August 18, 2025, the Appellant received a Candidate Score Report which included a score of 17.54 on the E&E component and an overall score of 87.30 for the BPD Lieutenant examination. The notice stated: “Chapter 31, Section 22 of the Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) provides that you may submit in writing a request for a review of the scoring of your Education and Experience by submitting an appeal at [the link BPD Exam Appeals]. (BPD Exam email dated 8.18.2025)
- By email dated August 29, 2025, the BPD HR Department issued this reminder:
As a reminder, the 17-day appeal period ends on Thursday, September 4, 2025. The appeal link and password were provided to all candidates in the email that accompanied your score report. Please make every effort to submit your appeals as soon as possible. Late appeals will not be accepted.
(Administrative Notice [HR email 8/29/25 re: appeal B2-25-360]) (emphasis in original)
- On September 4, 2025, the Appellant submitted appeal forms for review of his E&E component scores for review of the following:
The changes from prior exams, including removal of credit for “those who are certified EMTs or instructors” and allowing points for previous supervisory employment outside of law enforcement that simply has no connection or relevance to the role of Lieutenant in the Boston Police Department when “an individual such as myself, who is a certified instructor with the Municipal Police Training Committee (MPTC) and who supervises, manages, and teaches law enforcement and criminal justice specific classes, courses and training programs at several regional police academies including the BPD academy, and also at the collegiate level . . . has been stripped of earning the same valuable points.”
- The “validity, integrity, and verification process of external private supervisory experience relevant to what candidates submit. . . . I simply ask that you provide details on this process . . . If there is no such process or practice in place . . . then I ask that no external private supervisory experience be allowed for any candidates.”
- Because he “was given wrong information and incorrectly misled regarding the external private experience portion of the E&E component” by the BPD HR department and “I did not add the additional time as a business owner to my E&E submission form” and, now requested that “the appropriate amount of points” for his “time and experience as a business owner/supervisor” be added to his overall E&E score and Final exam score. [FN2]
(App 9/4/25 E&E Appeal Review Submissions)
- By emails on or about December 5, 2025 and December 8, 2025, the BPD HR department informed the Appellant that his appeals were denied. (12/5/25 Appeal Denial; 12/8/25 Email Re: Exam Status; Fair Test Appeal Denial [undated]; Business Credit Appeal Denial [(undated])
- The Commission received these appeals on December 10, 2025. (Claim of Appeal)
- By email dated March 31, 2026, the BPD reported that the test vendor (Morris & McDaniel) had calculated the hypothetical score that the Appellant would have received if he were awarded additional E&E credit for his claim to the [two years, three months – rounded to two full years] outside supervisory experience from September 2022, when he started his first outside employment contract, to December 2024, the date of the examination. This calculation showed that the Appellant’s E&E score would increase by 0.13 points and his overall exam score would increase to 87.43, which would round down to the same overall exam score of 87 and would not change his place on the current BPD Lieutenant eligible list. (BPD 3/31/26 SD Motion Mootness; Administrative Notice [BPD Lieutenant Eligible List])
Applicable Legal Standard
A motion to dispose of an appeal, in whole or in part, via summary decision may be allowed by the Commission pursuant to 801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(h) 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 Dept, 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 undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that these appeals must be dismissed.
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 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.” Pursuant to Section 24 of Chapter 31, “. . . 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 [HRD]”.
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 MCSR 147 (2025); Bell v. HRD, 38 MCSR 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 45 (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).
First, the Appellant’s claim that 2024 BPD promotional examinations had erroneously excluded credits for prior categories of experience (namely teaching) must be dismissed as untimely. The claim is a direct challenge to the “fairness” of the examination to test the fitness of a candidate to perform the duties of the position, i.e., BPD Police Lieutenant. The examination preparation materials clearly stated that such a fair test appeal must be filed no later than seven days after the administration of the examination. [FN3]
The basis for the Appellant’s claim for exclusion of prior allowed credits was apparent, from the E&E Prep Guide itself, well before the date for the submission of the E&E claim form on December 28, 2024; the Appellant’s initial appeals did not occur until September 4, 2025. Had the Appellant taken the necessary steps to challenge the “fairness” of this exclusion when he first read the E&E Prep Guide, the review process (and subsequent appeal to the Commission) might have afforded an opportunity for reconsideration of the issue in time to avoid the sort of complications that arise here after scores are computed and eligible lists established and the promotional process begins. These complications are precisely the reason that challenges of the “fairness” of any examination must be made within seven days of the examination. See, e,g., Colarusso v. Human Resources Division, 39 MCSR 117 (2026).
Second, the Appellant’s claim that he was misled by someone at the BPD and, therefore, did not claim any credit for his outside supervisory experience fails as well. The Appellant may believe that he was misinformed by someone at the BPD about what outside experience qualified for the credit and what did not. However, precisely because verbal communications may be inconsistent and unreliable, the BPD exam preparation guidelines require that questions about the exam must be sent IN WRITING so that any such risk of misinformation can be prevented. The record does not reflect any such written request by the Appellant for clarification. Moreover, even assuming, without deciding, that the Appellant received inaccurate information, he cannot establish prejudice because the additional credits he seeks would not change his overall rounded exam score or place on the current eligible list. Finally, as a matter of law, pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 24, the Appellant’s failure to make any claim to such outside experience “in the training or experience sheet”, precludes the Commission from now considering that issue. See, e.g., Giraldo v. Boston Police Department, 39 MCSR 220 (2026); Belgrave v. Boston Police Department, 39 MCSR 203 (2026); Walsh v. Boston Police Department, 39 MCSR 181 (2026).
Further, the BPD correctly argues that the burden rests with the Appellant to establish that the process for granting outside supervisory credits to other candidates is arbitrary or unreasonable. The Commission has recognized that the process of crediting outside supervisory experience may present novel challenges and call for heightened scrutiny to a degree not necessary for other forms of E&E credits. See, e.g., Belgrave v. Boston Police Department, 39 MCSR 203 (2026). However, here, the Appellant’s contentions that others’ credit claims for outside supervisory experience were not subjected to a valid vetting practice and that this prejudiced the Appellant do not rise above “mere speculation”. He provided no specific facts to provide any reasonable basis to infer that other candidates above him on the eligible list received such credits or, if so, that those credits actually prejudiced the Appellant’s civil service rights, which is necessary to give rise to a potential need for the Commission to intervene. To the contrary, the BPD required the submission of documentation identifying the specific number of hours of supervisory experience performed, fully stating the specific supervisory duties the candidate actually performed; and warned that generic statements would be insufficient. Thus, on this record, the criteria established by the BPD for proving entitlement to non-police-service supervisory E&E credit are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, either facially or as applied.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, BPD’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Appellant’s appeals under Docket Numbers B2-25-280 & B2-25-281 are dismissed.
Civil Service Commission
/s/ Paul M. Stein
Paul M. Stein
Commissioner
By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Dooley, Markey, McConney, and Stein Commissioners) on September 17, 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:
Charles Moore (Appellant)
Joseph A. McClellan, Esq. (for Respondent)
- The Appellant also filed an appeal contesting the “standardization and normalization” methodology used to score the E&E component which is being addressed separately in Moore v. BPD, CSC No. B2-25-310.
- As noted earlier, the Appellant also filed an appeal contesting the “standardization and normalization” methodology use to score the E&E component which is being addressed separately in Moore v. BPD, CSC No. B2-25-310.
- I have not overlooked the fact that other examination material does contain some ambiguity as to whether the window for filing a fair test claim is seven days or seventeen days. In either case, however, the Appellant has failed to make a timely claim. And, ultimately, the statute (G.L. c. 31, § 22), which is unambiguous, controls.
