Decision  Walsh, Seamus v. Boston Police Department & Human Resources Division 6/11/26

Date:	06/11/2026
Organization:	Civil Service Commission
Docket Number:	B2-25-298

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

The Commission dismissed the examination appeal of a candidate for Boston Police Lieutenant as the fair test portion of the candidate’s appeal was not timely filed with the Commission and the additional ECT&E points he is seeking would not change his overall score, making the appeal moot. 

Decision

On December 20, 2025, the Appellant, Seamus Walsh (Appellant), a police sergeant for the Boston Police Department (BPD), filed an appeal with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), contesting:  a) a determination by the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) that the oral board portion of a promotional examination for lieutenant was “fair and acceptable”;  and b) a determination by the Boston Police Department (BPD), in its delegated capacity, that the Appellant was not due additional education and experience (E&E) points on the E&E component of his examination. 

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, co-counsel for the BPD, and counsel for HRD.  I subsequently issued a Procedural Order and received additional information as requested from all parties. 

Facts / Chronology of 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 examinations. 
3. Among the components of the examination was an oral board presentation and an E&E component. 
4. On December 21, 2024, the Appellant sat for the BPD police lieutenant examination and, on May 12 and May 13, 2025, completed the oral board component of the examination. 
5. The Appellant also timely completed the E&E component of the examination.
6. During the first day (May 12th) of the oral board presentation, the Appellant was required to complete three, four-minute presentations to a 3-member panel.  At the commencement of each presentation, a four-minute countdown timer appeared on the wall and was supposed to be activated when the candidate began their presentation.  The parties agree that, during the second four-minute presentation of the Appellant, the countdown timer was not activated.  At or around the 1:30 mark of his presentation, the Appellant noticed that the timer had not been activated; he asked the panelists whether he should start over; and was told to continue with his presentation.  With approximately 1 minute and 30 seconds still showing on the timer, the Appellant’s time for presentation ended at the actual 4-minute mark, which the Appellant does not contest.  
7. The crux of the Appellant’s appeal regarding the oral board presentation is that, because of this technical issue, his performance was negatively impacted, both on the second presentation and on the subsequent 3^rd presentation the same day.  To support this argument, the Appellant states that his grade was 27% lower on these two presentations when compared to the other presentations that day or the next day. 
8. Shortly after the May 12^th oral board presentation, the Appellant filed an appeal with M&M.  M&M, in their response, acknowledged the technical issue but concluded that the Appellant was not negatively impacted as he was still afforded the full, four-minutes to give his presentation. 
9. Upon receiving the ruling from M&M, the Appellant filed a “fair test” appeal with HRD.  The parties stipulated that the Appellant’s fair test appeal with HRD was timely filed with HRD.  Attached to the BPD’s pre-hearing memo is correspondence from HRD to the Appellant, which states that it was sent to the Appellant via email on July 31, 2025, denying the Appellant’s fair test appeal.  At the bottom of the correspondence is language from Section 24 of Chapter 31 stating that the Appellant had 17 days from the date of receipt of the July 31, 2025 correspondence, to contest HRD’s determination regarding the fair test appeal to the Commission. 
10. At the pre-hearing conference, the Appellant stated that he was either unsure or did not receive the July 31, 2025 denial from HRD.  HRD has subsequently confirmed that the denial notice was indeed sent to the Appellant on that date. 
11. It is undisputed that the Appellant did not file an appeal with the Commission within 17 days of July 31^st.
12. Sometime in August 2025, the Appellant received his score notice, showing a total score of 88.06, with 25.16 points for the technical portion of the examination, 24.68 points for the oral board presentations, 21.26 points for in-basket portion of the examination, and 16.97 points for the E&E component.   
13. On September 2, 2025, the Appellant filed a two-part appeal with M&M, again contesting whether the oral board component was a “fair test” due to the technical issues and also raising an issue related to his E&E score, asserting that he was only credited with 1063.25 hours of temporary service in  a higher rank when, according to the Appellant, he should have been credited with 1123 hours based on actual hours performed during regular and/or overtime shifts. 
14. On December 5, 2025, the BPD emailed correspondence to the Appellant denying both components of the Appellant’s September 2, 2025 filing (i.e. – the oral board appeal and the E&E appeal). 
15. According to the BPD, it was an administrative oversight to send the Appellant a (second) denial of the oral board presentation appeal given that HRD had already sent the Appellant a denial of that part of this appeal on July 31, 2025. 
16. An eligible list for BPD police lieutenant was established on January 5, 2026.  The Appellant is tied for 24^th with 23 candidates ranked above him. 
17. Based on calculations completed by M&M at the request of the Commission, it has been determined that the Appellant’s whole score would not change even if he was given credit for 1123 hours as opposed to 1063.25.   
18. The Appellant asserted that his whole score could possibly change if a parallel appeal he filed regarding the Standardization and Normalization (S&N) process is successful.  That appeal, docketed under B2-25-297, was dismissed by the Commission on April 30, 2026 as he failed to file a timely appeal with the BPD, the vendor, or HRD prior to filing an appeal with the Commission as it relates to that issue. 
19. The Appellant raised an additional issue during the appeal process before the Commission: stating that he didn’t receive proper credit for time spent in Acting positions.  That rests on a mistaken assumption by the Appellant that he should receive credit for both regular and acting time when performing acting time.  

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 in part for being untimely and in part on mootness grounds.  The Appellant did indeed file a timely appeal regarding whether the issue with the time clock during his oral boards resulted in him being given an unfair test.  After review, 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 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. 

                Regarding the E&E portion of this appeal, it is moot.  The additional hours being requested by the Appellant would not change his whole score or his ranking on the eligible list. Finally, the Appellant has no reasonable expectation of showing that he should receive additional credit for time spent in an acting capacity as this rests on the erroneous assumption that a candidate can receive credit for both acting and regular time when working in an acting capacity.         

Conclusion

                The Appellant’s appeal docketed under Docket Number B2-25-298 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:
Seamus Walsh (Appellant) 
Joseph McClellan, Esq. (for BPD)
Michael Owens, Esq. (HRD)