On January 5, 2026, Kamau Pritchard (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: Essay Question.
On March 10, 2026, I conducted a remote pre-hearing conference which was attended by the Appellant, his counsel, counsel for the BPD, and counsel for the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD). I have deemed the BPD’s pre-hearing memo to be a motion to dismiss and the Appellant’s submission as an opposition to that motion.
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: Essay Question.
- Scores were released to the Appellant on August 20, 2025.
- The Appellant filed a timely appeal with M&M, contesting his Essay Question score.
- The Appellant’s essay question score was adjusted slightly upward after review.
- The Appellant’s final score, according to the BPD and M&M, is 86.08, including 15.51 out of a total 19.2 points for the written essay exercise.
- On January 5, 2026, the Appellant filed the instant appeal with the Commission.
- An eligible list for BPD Sergeant was established on February 13, 2026. The Appellant is tied for 214th on that eligible list.
- While a favorable decision by the Commission has the potential of adjusting the Appellant’s score upward to impact his ranking on the eligible list, it is uncertain whether it would result in a high enough ranking to be eligible for consideration for promotion to sergeant during the life of the current eligible list.
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 crux of the Appellant’s appeal is two-fold. First, the Appellant sought verification that his final score reflected the upward adjustment in the written exercise. Second, the Appellant questioned whether the evaluation of his written essay included what he wrote on the BACK page in the booklet. More broadly, the Appellant argued that his written essay score should be higher.
Prior to the pre-hearing conference, the BPD submitted, for in-camera review, a copy of the Appellant’s written essay submission, along with “comparators” in the low, medium and high score categories. After a careful review of the Appellant’s written submission and the comparators, I conclude that there is no reasonable expectation that the Appellant could show that it was arbitrary and capricious for the M&M reviewers to give the Appellant a numerical written essay score equivalent to “clearly competent” as opposed to a higher score consistent with “good”, “very good” or “superior”. While the Appellant’s response (on the front and back sides), was thoughtful and competent, it lacked the type of focus, detail and measurable deliverables contained in the higher rated submissions.
Further, I asked BPD to verify that the Appellant’s final score and ranking incorporated the upward adjustment done by M&M, which they have now done.
Conclusion
For all the above reasons, including that the Appellant has no reasonable expectation of prevailing in this appeal, his appeal docketed under Docket Number B2-26-021 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:
James Gilden, Esq. (for Appellant)
Joseph McClellan, Esq. (for BPD)
Nicole Boudreau, Esq. (HRD)
