This appeal was brought by the Appellant, John P. Walthall, a Fire Lieutenant with the Town of Burlington’s Fire Department (BFD), from the decision of the state's Human Resources Division (HRD) denying him certain credits for experience and education on the Experience, Certifications, Training & Education (ECT&E) component of the Statewide Fire Captain promotional examination administered by HRD on April 12, 2025. By Decision dated November 11, 2025, the Commission allowed the appeal, in part, and, pursuant to the Commission's Decision, HRD recalculated the Appellant's ECT&E score to allow him additional ECT&E points for a "related associate’s degree.” The adjustment to the Appellant's score moved him into first place on the current eligible list for BFD Fire Captain, established on August 1, 2025.
On November 28, 2025, HRD filed a Motion to Reconsider the Commission's Decision. Thereafter, BFD Fire Lieutenant Ficociello filed a request for investigation and BFD Fire Lieutenant Craig Callahan filed an independent appeal, both arguing that they were aggrieved by the Commission's Decision in this appeal. Specifically, Lieutenant Callahan was moved from first place to second place on the current eligible list and Lieutenant Ficociello was moved to third place on the eligible list.
By Procedural Order dated December 12, 2025, I allowed Lieutenants Ficociello and Callahan to file a motion to intervene in this appeal and to file a motion for reconsideration of the Commission's Decision, which they did on December 9, 2025 and January 4, 2026, respectively. The Appellant filed objections to the motions to intervene and the motions for reconsideration. The Procedural Order also directed the Appellant to file, on or before January 13, 2026, "a copy of his associate’s degree diploma or a letter from Columbia Southern University stating when they expect to issue that diploma."
On January 23, 2026, I held a remote hearing on the motions to intervene and the motions for reconsideration. Counsel for the Appellant and HRD appeared at the hearing, along with Lieutenant Ficociello and his counsel, and Lieutenant Callahan, who appeared pro se. At the hearing, I noted that the Commission had not yet received a copy of the Appellant's associate’s degree or letter stating when that degree would be issued. Counsel for the Appellant represented that a degree had not been awarded but that the Appellant had received a letter from the University that he would provide. I was also informed that the BFD planned on making a promotional appointment to Fire Captain soon. Further, I was informed that the past practice of the BFD has been to make promotional appointments in rank order from the eligible list. Collectively, these factors all compel a timely decision on the motion for reconsideration.
After the conclusion of the hearing, I received an email from the Appellant's counsel containing a "screen shot" of correspondence from a “Degree Auditor” in the Office of the Registrar at Columbia Southern University which stated, in relevant part, that the Appellant has "66 credit hours" toward his Bachelor's Degree in Fire Science, that he "has an 'Associate Degree Request for Bachelor Students' on file for the A.S. In Fire Science” and that "It takes 60 credit hours to complete the A.S. in Fire Science."
Following the January 23, 2026 motion hearing, I issued an Interim Procedural Order granting Participant status to Lieutenants Callahan and Ficociello pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01(9)(e). I also allowed the Appellant to cure his non-compliance with the Commission’s prior procedural order by granting him leave to submit, on or before February 1, 2026, a clarifying submission from Columbia Southern University (CSU) which contains (a) a copy of the "Associate's Degree Request for Bachelor Student's" submitted by the Appellant; and, if not shown in that document, a statement on CSU Letterhead attesting to the date on which the Appellant submitted that request; AND (b) either a copy of the Associates Degree awarded to the Appellant or a statement on CSU Letterhead attesting to the date on which that degree is expected to be awarded as required by the Commission's Procedural Order.
On January 30, 2026, the Commission received an email from the Appellant’s counsel which attached a document stating:
To Whom It May Concern,
John (Jack) Patrick Walthall is currently enrolled in the Bachelor of Science in Fire Administration/Fire Investigation, and 66 credit hours have been applied toward his active degree.
It takes 60 credit hours to complete the Associate of Science in Fire Science. After reviewing his record, I wanted to note that Jack has completed all requirements for an Associate of Science in Fire Science and should receive his diploma for this program in April, 2026.
Sincerely,
Chelsea Bullock
Chelsea Bullock
Director of Registrar Operations
Chelsea.bullock@columiasouthern.edu
I also received a supplemental email from HRD referencing prior submissions and argument regarding the contents of the relevant portions of the Examination Preparation Guide explaining the types of documentation that HRD accepts as proof of an academic degree, namely, either (1) an “official transcript” or (2) an “unofficial transcript & diploma,” containing “name, major, degree confer date, and institution name.” HRD’s email also referred the Commission to the CSU website and, after review of that website, I take administrative notice of the process that CSU provided to the Appellant to obtain a copy of his official transcript or authorize another person do so to. (Columbia Southern University Transcript Request | Parchment). Finally, I also take administrative notice: (1) that Columbia Southern University does confer an Associate of Science in Fire Science (AS Fire Science | Columbia Southern University); (2) CSU confers degrees monthly (CSU Student Handbook); (3) diplomas and official transcripts are sent to students within six weeks of the date upon which a degree was conferred (CSU University Catalog); and (4) Students who need to verify that they have graduated or are scheduled to graduate due to an upcoming promotion board, school admission, or other work-related circumstance may request a Letter of Pending Graduation from the Office of the Registrar. (CSU University Catalog).
After carefully considering the submissions of the parties and the information on the CSU website to which HRD has referred the Commission, I conclude that HRD and the Intervenors have shown that the Commission overlooked significant factors in reaching its prior Decision in this appeal. The motions to reconsider are allowed and, after reconsideration, the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
HRD’s Motion for Reconsideration argues that the Commission’s Decision is flawed for two reasons: (1) the Commission erroneously determined that the Appellant’s appeal was timely filed within the statutorily-defined deadline; and (2) the Commission overlooked the Appellant’s failure to make even a good faith effort to comply with HRD’s reasonably stated requirements for demonstrating that he had earned an Associate’s Degree. Participant Ficociello echoed HRD’s arguments. Participant Callahan also argued that the Decision to grant the Appellant credit for a “degree equivalent” credit created an unfair playing field as this opportunity was not made available to the entire pool.
First, the issue of timelines is not well-founded. HRD and the Participants correctly cite G.L. c. 31, §§ 22 - 24, which prescribes a 17-day window to request an HRD review of an ECT&E score, and a 17-day window to appeal HRD’s decision to the Commission. The Commission did not overlook this statutory requirement. Rather, the Commission considered the facts of this case to find that the Appellant’s appeal was timely because it was filed with the Commission within 17 days of the Appellant receiving his revised score determination from HRD on July 25, 2025. As the Commission’s Decision explained:
. . . [T]he Appellant’s prompt appeal of the revised July 25, 2025 score notice (which did not provide any reference to an HRD review but directed the Appellant to file an appeal with the Commission), warrants the Commission to take jurisdiction. Ordinarily, when an appeal is mistakenly, but timely, filed with the Commission, the Commission would dismiss the appeal with a future effective date, and return the matter to HRD for a proper review. In the particular circumstances of this matter, the undisputed facts make such a deferral unnecessary.
I also note that, prior to HRD’s revised score notice of July 25, 2025, the Appellant had been ranked first on the BFD Captain’s eligible list, so any attempt to appeal the education credit issue would have been subject to dismissal as he was not then aggrieved by the failure to grant him that credit.
Second, Participant Callahan raises a fair point that, as a general rule, consistency and equal treatment in examination administration and scoring are important tenants of civil service merit principles. See, e.g., DiGiando v. HRD, 37 MCSR 252 (2024). At the motion hearing, both Participants confirmed that they received education credit for a related bachelor’s degree. Thus, the Commission’s Decision would not require any adjustments to the exam scores of either Participant, and the Commission’s Decision did not apply to any candidates other than those on the BFD Captain’s list. I continue to believe that basic merit principles require HRD to address the issue of completed but not “conferred degrees” in future examinations.[1] This point, however, is not grounds to overturn the Decision in the present appeal.
The final issue raised by HRD warrants reconsideration of the Commission’s Decision. The Commission’s Decision to order HRD to provide the Appellant credit for a “related associate’s degree” was based on three prongs, i.e., findings that he had established by a preponderance of the evidence that prior to the April 2025 examination: (1) he successfully completed a course of study that was equivalent to the credits required to obtain a CSU associate’s degree in Fire Science; (2) he had provided, at a minimum, a copy of an “unofficial transcript” compliant with HRD’s examination preparation instructions; and (3) he had requested a diploma certifying the conference of the associate’s degree, but, through no fault of his own, CSU was unable to provide the diploma in a timely manner. Under those circumstances, the Commission concluded that, save for the submission of a diploma, the Appellant had taken all necessary steps to demonstrate his completion and entitlement to be conferred an Associate’s Degree in Fire Science prior to the examination date and it would be unreasonable to deny him credit for that degree solely because, through no fault of his own, CSU did not provide a diploma in a timely manner.
After careful review of the relevant facts, however, it now appears that the Appellant did not exercise timely due diligence to procure a copy of his diploma (or an official transcript indicating the date that the degree was, or would be, conferred) as the Commission Decision had concluded. At the motion hearing, and to date, the Appellant has not produced a diploma or other official CSU transcript or document transcript showing that he received his associate’s degree. The now nearly one-year delay undermines the third prong in the Commission’s findings that the issuance of a diploma was merely a ministerial act and that the delay was entirely attributable to CSU’s “backlog” in issuing them.
I note that CSU’s student handbook specifically provides that degrees are conferred monthly and that the CSU catalog states that official transcripts and diplomas are typically issued within six weeks of the date the degree is conferred. I also note that CSU provides a process for students “who need to verify that they have graduated or are scheduled to graduate due to an upcoming promotion board, school admission, or other work-related circumstances” to request a Letter of Pending Graduation from the Office of the Registrar. There is no record that the Appellant made such a request. The “screen shot” provided after the motion hearing by the Appellant appears to indicate that the Appellant did, at some unspecified time, make an “Associate's Degree Request for Bachelor Students” but it was not acted on or followed up by the Appellant. Under these circumstances, the Appellant’s initial claim that he had exercised prior due diligence to obtain a diploma or other official indication of his completion of the requirements for conferral of an associate’s degree, and that the failure to provide a diploma or other equivalent proof, is, in part, through his dilatory actions and inactions and cannot be attributed solely to CSU.
The Appellant’s submission on January 30, 2026 does not cure the deficiencies in the Appellant’s efforts to establish that he had earned an associate’s degree and that he had exercised prior due diligence to procure the receipt of a diploma or other official documentation that issuance of the diploma was imminent. The January 30, 2026 letter states that 66 credit hours have been applied toward the Appellant’s bachelor’s degree, the same number of credit hours shown on the academic record submitted to HRD prior to the April 2025 examination. The letter does not include the information required by the Commission’s Interim Procedural Order for a copy of the “Associate's Degree Request for Bachelor Students” that the Appellant claimed he submitted showing the date on which the Appellant submitted that request. I also note that the letter stated that the diploma would be issued on or around April 2026, a year after the date of the Statewide Captain’s examination, and more than a year after the Appellant’s purportedly qualified to receive such a diploma.[2]
Accordingly, HRD’s Motion for Reconsideration is well-founded. The Commission continues to expect that HRD will take appropriate steps in future examinations to provide a process for candidates to submit appropriate documentation (such as a “Letter of Pending Graduation” issued by CSU) to show that they completed all requirements for conferral of an academic degree and that the issuance of the diploma is imminent and is merely a ministerial act. HRD should not be expected, however, to provide academic credit to candidates who do not take all available action to procure such a diploma or letter in a timely manner for more than a year after the administration of an examination.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Motions to Reconsider are allowed. After reconsideration, the Commission’s Decision dated November 11, 2025 is amended insofar as it allowed the appeal, in part, and the Appellant’s appeal under Docket Number B2-25-173 is now 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 February 5, 2026.
Either party may file a motion for reconsideration within ten days of the 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:
Galen Gilbert, Esq. (for Appellant)
Michael J. Owens, Esq. (for Respondent)
Michael Reilly, Esq. (for Participant Todd Ficociello
Craig Callahan (Participant)
[1] For example, HRD’s examination preparation guide should provide a procedure for candidates who have completed the requirements for a degree and are simply awaiting receipt of a diploma (on a reasonably close future date) to document that fact and receive appropriate education credit. Providing such a procedure will give candidates with comparable education the equivalent credit they deserve while giving candidates the clarity that is currently lacking.
[2] I also note that the signature block on the letter appears to contain a misspelled email address, which would not be expected in official correspondence from a university supervisory employee.
