Decision  Saulnier, Eric v. City of Somerville 9/17/26

Date:	09/17/2026
Organization:	Civil Service Commission
Docket Number:	B2-26-072

• Appearance for Appellant: Eric Saulnier
• Appearance for Respondent: Matthew Sirigu, Esq.
• Hearing Officer: Christopher C. Bowman

The Commission dismissed a promotional examination appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the exam applicant failed to first seek the administrative review required by G.L. c. 31, §§ 22 and 24, before appealing to the Commission.

Decision on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss

On March 18, 2026, the Appellant, Eric Saulnier (Appellant), filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), regarding the promotional examinations administered for Somerville Deputy Fire Chief and Somerville District Fire Chief.

On April 14, 2026, I held a remote pre-hearing conference, which was attended by the Appellant, counsel for the City of Somerville (City), and co-counsel for the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD).  I subsequently issued a Procedural Order and various additional orders seeking information from HRD and a private testing vendor.  The City then filed a motion to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal and the Appellant did not file an opposition. 

Facts / Chronology of Events 

                For purposes of deciding the City’s motion, the following chronology accepts the Appellant’s factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor: 

1. The City entered into a delegation agreement with HRD to conduct “weighted graded” examinations for Deputy Fire Chief and District Fire Chief.
2. The City contracted with a vendor by the name of Parrow Consulting and Associates to administer the examinations.
3. The component weights were:  40% written examination, which included traditional multiple choice and situational judgment questions; 40% Assessment Center; and 20% Experience, Certifications /Training and Education (ECT&E).
4. As part of the Assessment Center for each examination, candidates needed to complete four exercises, including an “in-tray exercise”.
5. The Appellant completed the Assessment Center portion of the examinations in January 2026.
6. Sometime later in January 2026, the Appellant received his scores. 
7. The Appellant believes he received an 87 on both examinations.
8. Regarding the Assessment Center portion of the District Fire Chief examination, the Appellant received 30.8 out of a maximum 40 points (77%).
9. On March 1, 2026, an eligible list was established for Somerville Deputy Fire Chief and District Fire Chief.  The Appellant is ranked last on both lists.
10. Sometime after March 1, 2026, the vendor scheduled sessions with each applicant to provide them with feedback on the assessment center portion of the examination.
11. On the day of the meeting, the Appellant met with John Parrow in the training room of Somerville FD headquarters. Mr. Parrow explained what the exercises were looking for and then discussed the individual scores. 
12. Mr. Parrow explained that notes/answers that were highlighted in gray fell below average (below 75), scores highlighted in yellow were average (75-84) and scores highlighted in green were above average (85+). 
13. Some things weren’t making sense to the Appellant, but he did not raise any concerns to Mr. Parrow during the meeting. 
14. After leaving the building, the Appellant received a call from another candidate who was next up for meeting with Mr. Parrow.  He said that Mr. Parrow had given the Appellant the wrong scoring sheet and needed him to come back to headquarters.
15. After receiving this call, the Appellant immediately looked at the scoring sheet he had tucked in the book and it belonged to the candidate who called him. 
16. When the Appellant handed Mr. Parrow the other candidate’s scoring sheets, Mr. Parrow handed the Appellant his own scoring sheet and apologized. 
17. Later, when the Appellant reviewed his actual scoring sheet, for the in-tray exercise portion of the exam, the evaluator notes stated, “Had all the priorities correct. Very good job” and the text was highlighted in yellow, indicating it was “average 75-84.” The Appellant was confused by this discrepancy. 
18. The City acknowledges that mistakes were made here, for which they offered their apology to the Appellant, but stated that they were assured, and were provided supporting documentation to show, that the Appellant’s correct assessment center scores were transmitted to HRD.  Regarding the section that was color-coded as yellow, but in which the Appellant was told he performed well, the City was told by the vendor that the only error was that the yellow highlighting presented to the Appellant was a scrivener’s error and that it should have been highlighted in green. 
19. On March 18, 2026, the Appellant filed an appeal with the Commission.
20. The Appellant acknowledges that he did not file any appeal with the City, the testing vendor or HRD.
21. Section I, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the delegation agreement between HRD and the City states:  “Periodic or random audits of all examination materials, examination records, and/or delegated personnel transactions may be conducted at any time by representatives from HRD. All examination materials, records, ledgers and correspondence relating to the delegated functions shall be made readily available and accessible to HRD upon request. HRD may also at its option attend the administration of the examination as an observer. HRD retains the rights to review, retain, approve, and/or disapprove of any and all examination related materials and/or records, before or after the administration of the examination, at its discretion . . . . A report on any audit findings regarding delegated personnel transactions will be made available to the Delegation Administrator. Any corrective action as a result of the audit findings, must be taken by the Town of Somerville Fire Department within thirty 30 days from receipt of the audit report. A written report of that corrective action shall be submitted to HRD.”
22. Through the issuance of a Procedural Order, I urged HRD to exercise their discretionary authority to conduct a targeted audit regarding the missteps here, provide the Appellant with assurances that his examination was graded properly, and to ensure that appropriate corrective measures are in place going forward.
23. HRD subsequently completed a review and was assured by Mr. Parrow that the correct scores were submitted to HRD pertaining to the Appellant’s examination.
24. I subsequently completed my own in-camera review of all examination material produced by Mr. Parrow, posing multiple follow-up inquiries to him.
25. After conducting that in-camera review, including examination material such as evaluator notes, I have concluded that the testing vendor provided HRD with the accurate scores related to the Appellant’s assessment center examinations. 

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 

                Solely for the purpose of deciding this appeal, I have concluded that the Appellant could not reasonably have known of the alleged problems with the scoring of his Assessment Center until the post-examination review was conducted on March 11, 2026.  However, the Appellant acknowledges that he failed to file any appeal – at any time – with the City, the testing vendor or HRD. 

                I also considered whether this appeal could fall under the broad umbrella of Section 2(b) of Chapter 31.  For clarity, Section 2(b) states in part that the Commission is authorized “. . . to hear and decide appeals by a person aggrieved by any decision, action, or failure to act by the administrator, except as limited by the provisions of section twenty-four relating to the grading of examinations.” Regardless of whether the Appellant's claim is characterized as a challenge to the fairness of the examination or as a challenge to the marking of his examination, he was required to first seek review with HRD, the City or the testing vendor before appealing to the Commission. He did not do so.  See Lincoln and another v. Personnel Administrator of the Department of Personnel Administration & Civil Service Commission, 432 Mass. 208, 212-213 (2000) (affirming dismissal of examination appeals for failure to exhaust the administrative review process).

While this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, I have, as referenced above, conducted an in-camera review of all components of the Appellant’s examinations – and the data that was transmitted to HRD.  I am confident that the data transmitted to HRD accurately reflects the evaluator scores pertaining to the Appellant.   That notwithstanding, the unforced errors that occurred here are regrettable.  The testing vendor erroneously reviewed the results of a different candidate’s scores when meeting with the Appellant and then compounded the error by using the wrong color code to categorize one component of the Appellant’s examination score.  While the actual scores reported to HRD were accurate, these types of mistakes have the potential of undermining confidence in the examination process. Both the City – and Mr. Parrow – should take all reasonable steps to avoid these missteps in the future. 

Conclusion

                As the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal, it 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 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:
Eric Saulnier (Appellant) 
Matthew Sirigu, Esq. (for Respondent) 
Arshneel Kaur, Esq. (HRD)