| Date: | 06/25/2026 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Civil Service Commission |
| Docket Number: | I-25-108 |
The Commission issued a final response regarding an investigation into matters related to the promotional process in the Bridgewater Police Department.
On October 23, 2023, the Bridgewater Police Association, MCOP Local 387 (Union), filed a petition with the Civil Service Commission (Commission), asking the Commission to investigate the Bridgewater Police Department (BPD) in “all aspects of administration and implementation of the civil service system on its own initiative or upon request of others, as specified in M.G.L. c. 31, §2(a)”.
Separately, on September 19, 2023, then-BPD Sergeant Kelly Chuilli (Chuilli) filed a timely appeal with the Commission contesting the BPD’s decision to bypass her for promotional appointment to BPD Lieutenant in favor of Sergeant John Hennessey, the third ranked candidate on the eligible list. Chuilli was ranked first among those candidates eligible for promotional appointment and the BPD bypassed her in favor of the third ranked candidate.
As part of her bypass appeal, Chuilli also asserted that the same alleged irregularities in the BPD’s administration of the April 2023 Sole Assessment Center raised in the Union’s petition had also contributed to her unlawful bypass for promotion to BPD Lieutenant. The Commission subsequently allowed Chuilli’s bypass appeal, converted the promotion of Lieutenant Hennessey to a temporary promotion pending further action by the BPD to redo the Lieutenant promotional process and initiated an independent investigation into the broader claims raised by the union and Chuilli.
The Commission, established pursuant to G.L. c. 7, § 4I, is an independent, neutral appellate tribunal and investigative entity. Section 2(a) of Chapter 31 grants the Commission broad discretion upon receipt of an alleged violation of the civil service law’s provisions to decide whether and to what extent an investigation might be appropriate. Section 72 of Chapter 31 provides for the Commission to “investigate all or part of the official and labor services, the work, duties and compensation of the persons employed in such services, the number of persons employed in such services and the titles, ratings and methods of promotion in such services.”
The Commission exercises its discretion to investigate only “sparingly,” typically only when there is clear and convincing evidence of systemic violations of Chapter 31 or an entrenched political or personal bias that can be rectified through the Commission’s affirmative remedial intervention.
The investigation included a de novo review of the record in the Chuilli bypass appeal, including 43 exhibits and the sworn testimony of then-Sergeant Kelly Chuilli, Lieutenant Hile, retired Lieutenant Anne Schuster, Police Chief Christopher Delmonte, Paul Chuilli (Kelly Chuilli’s spouse and a Bridgewater Fire Department Captain) and five other witnesses, as well as the new information received during the investigation that included (a) interviews with the following individuals, each of whom was accompanied by counsel: Retired Lieutenant Kelly Chuilli, Sergeant George Zanellato, and Lieutenant John Hennessey; and (b) review of the independent investigative report conducted by KP Law into allegations by Kelly Chuilli of discrimination by certain BPD officers received by the Commission from the Town of Bridgewater pursuant to investigative subpoena. Further, the Commission also obtained public records concerning the charitable donations made to the Town of Bridgewater by CNT, Inc. and the Oliari Charitable Trust. On May 14, 2026, the Commission conducted an investigatory interview via remote videoconference with Lieutenant Hile and his counsel.
By Interim Order dated April 16, 2026, the Commission found that the promotion of Sergeant Hennessey was not influenced by any misconduct on his part, that he was entitled to be restored to permanent BPD Police Lieutenant, and that, with the retirement of Lieutenant Chuilli, further remedial action regarding the Lieutenant promotional process was not warranted.
On April 26, 2026 and May 8, 2026, the Commission received Motions for Reconsideration or Clarification filed by counsel for Sergeant Zanellato and retired Lieutenant Chuilli, respectively, purportedly pursuant to 801 CMR 1.01(7)(l), seeking, among other things, that the Commission expand its investigation, interview certain additional BPD officers and former BPD officers, and revive the now expired eligible lists for BPD Lieutenant and Captain. 801 CMR 1.01(7)(l) applies to decisions in adjudicatory proceedings and does not apply to Commission investigations and a formal decision on those motions is not required. 801 CMR 1.01)(2). The Commission, however, has fully considered these requests and, in its discretion, concludes that expanding the investigation or conducting further interviews is unlikely to yield any new material information that is not already known through the testimony given at the Chuilli bypass hearing or through the Commission’s investigatory research and interviews sufficient to change the conclusions set forth in this response. Similarly, the Commission concludes that revival of expired eligible “short” lists more than three years old is not warranted and would do more harm than good to the civil service rights of BPD officers whose future potential promotional rights would be affected.
Based on the totality of the information received, we now make the following additional findings:
Over three years ago, Kelly Chuilli, a female police sergeant in the Bridgewater Police Department (BPD), along with the local superior officers’ union filed complaints with the Civil Service Commission (Commission) related to the police promotional process in the BPD.
Regarding the promotional bypass appeal filed by Chuilli, the Commission conducted two days of hearings and reviewed the testimony of 10 witnesses and relevant documents in the record. Ultimately, the Commission concluded that there was no basis for the Police Chief to bypass Chuilli, the first ranked candidate, for promotional appointment to lieutenant, disregarding both the rankings of the civil service eligible list and the recommendations of an outside review panel.
Further, the Commission concluded that Chuilli’s bypass and other punitive actions taken against her were based on factors wholly unrelated to a merit-based selection process, taking place after she refused to go along with an eyebrow-raising proposal by her superior officer who offered to pay her examination fee for her to sign up for, but not take a promotional examination, which would have had the end result of shrinking the pool of his potential competitors for Police Captain.
The Commission ultimately ordered relief that resulted in Chuilli’s promotion to a third lieutenant position with back pay and an effective date preceding that of the third-ranked candidate who was selected for appointment over Chuilli.
With the Chuilli bypass appeal resolved, the Commission then initiated an investigation into the more global allegations about the promotional process, including the serious allegation that Lt. Scott Hile was seeking to manipulate the 2023 promotional process to gain an unfair advantage as a candidate for BPD Police Captain.
For context, the civil service law at the time required a minimum of four lieutenants and/or sergeants to register for the BPD Police Captain examination before the exam could be administered. If four lieutenants and/or sergeants did not sign up for the examination, the pool of eligible candidates competing against Hile would greatly expand to include BPD officers of every rank.
Against that backdrop, it is alleged that Hile offered to pay the $150 exam filing fee for other lieutenants and sergeants, thus meeting the minimum floor of four registered candidates, while then encouraging those same candidates to not sit for the examination. The benefit to Hile would be two-fold: fewer candidates eligible to sit for the examination with the 4-person threshold met; and even fewer candidates eligible to appear on the police captain eligible list if candidates registered, but did not actually sit for, the examination.
As referenced above, the Commission has already found that Hile approached Chuilli with this precise two-pronged offer: he would pay Chuilli’s $150 filing fee and Chuilli would sit out the Police Captain examination. As discussed above and in detail in the Commission’s decision, Chuilli’s refusal to go along with this scheme contributed to a series of adverse actions against her, including the decision to bypass her for promotional appointment to lieutenant.
As part of the broader investigation, the Commission sought to confirm whether Hile approached other individuals with the same offer he made to Chuilli. In short, it is undisputed that Hile paid the $150 examination fee of another police lieutenant and that candidate failed to sit for the captain examination. In fact, the candidate purportedly had no interest in the captain position as she was anticipating retirement soon and did retire in November 2023. While both Hile and the now retired lieutenant deny that Hile’s payment was contingent on the lieutenant not sitting for the examination, it is undisputed the Hile paid the $150 examination fee on her behalf, and she failed to appear for the examination.
With Chuilli refusing to sit out the examination, four candidates ultimately sat for the Captain exam and Hile placed fourth on the eligible list, outside the statutory 2N+1 window of eligibility. Records reviewed by the Commission during this investigation show that beginning a few months after the 2023 promotional process and while Lieutenant Hile remained on the eligible list for promotion to Police Captain, Hile’s spouse, who is a principal in a charitable organization, made contributions to the Town’s Police and Fire Departments —including $20,000 in December 2023 and $45,000 in December 2024. The Town’s Police Chief ultimately decided not to make any promotion to Captain from the eligible list.
Public safety officers across Massachusetts collectively spend thousands of hours each year preparing for civil service promotional examinations, foregoing precious time with friends and family. They have a right to expect that the results of those examinations, and other merit-based factors, will form the sole basis for who receives a promotional appointment. The unjustified bypass of Chuilli, the punitive actions against her that followed; the attempts by Hile to manipulate the examination process to his advantage; and the failure by the BPD to even acknowledge that large contributions by a candidate’s spouse could create an appearance of an unfair advantage, go against all of that, potentially undermining the integrity of the civil service process.
The more difficult question here is what additional action, if any, the Commission should take here beyond what the Commission has already ordered in its prior decisions that resulted in Chuilli being duly promoted to lieutenant and receiving back pay for the time period that she should have served as a lieutenant had the BPD not bypassed her without justification. By those decisions, the Commission has ordered all of the appropriate action necessary to remediate the BPD’s violation of the civil service law arising from her bypass for promotion to BPD Police Lieutenant.
We also considered that, while Hile may have potentially benefitted by the BPD’s decision not to make promotions from the eligible list while he sat outside the 2N+1 formula, the reality is that Hile has not been promoted to permanent Captain and the 2023 eligible list has now expired.
In consideration of the above, we have concluded that further remedial orders are not required at this time. Ultimately, the quickest way to ensure a level-playing field for all candidates is for the BPD leadership and all other civil service community stakeholders to take proactive steps to prevent a replay of these troubling events during future promotional examinations.
For all of the above reasons, we recommend that the Commission issue this response, post a notice of this response on the Commission’s website for public review and close the investigation.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
/s/ Paul M. Stein
Paul M. Stein
Commissioner
/s/ Carolyn E. De Luca
Carolyn E. De Luca
Deputy General Counsel
On June 25, 2026, the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chair; Markey, McConney and Stein, Commissioners [Dooley – Absent]) voted to adopt this Final Response and accept the recommendations set forth above.
Notice to:
Richard Massina, Esq. (for Bridgewater Police Department)
Allison MacLellan, Esq. (for Kelly Chuilli)
Michele Heffernan, Esq. (General Counsel, HRD)
