Decision  O'Neil Stephen v. Boston Police Department & HRD 4/30/26

Date:	04/30/2026
Organization:	Civil Service Commission
Docket Number:	B2-25-320

• Appearance for Appellant: Stephen M. O'Neil
• Appearance for Respondent: Joseph McClellan, Esq. , Nicole Boudreau, Esq.
• Hearing Officer: Christopher C. Bowman

The Commission allowed the appeal of a Boston Police Officer and ordered that he be granted credit on a promotional examination for police sergeant for outside supervisory experience performed many years ago as he timely claimed the credit and has been able to provide sufficient documentation to support his claim. 

Decision

On December 26, 2025, Stephen M. O’Neil (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:    Experience / Certifications, Training and Education (ECT&E). 

On March 10, 2026, I, along with the Commission’s Deputy General Counsel, conducted a remote pre-hearing conference which was attended by the Appellant, counsel for the BPD and counsel for the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD).   I have deemed the parties’ submissions as cross motions for summary decision. 

 Undisputed Facts 

1. The BPD entered into a delegation agreement with HRD to administer promotional examinations, including for sergeant and lieutenant. 
2. The BPD contracted with a vendor by the name of Morris and McDaniel (M&M) to conduct and score the examinations. 
3. The examinations consisted of various components including:  ECT&E.
4.  On the “Experience Verification Form” (EVF) that the Appellant submitted to M&M, he stated that he was a “furniture delivery contractor” for Joseph Eletto Transfer between February 3, 1998 and February 10, 2003.   
5. Under “Summary of Supervisory Duties” on the EVF he wrote:  “Contracted for delivery of furniture for products from Bloomindale’s, Macy’s, and Filenes.  Supervised employees in all aspects of the service.  Letter attached.”  In the letter that he attached to the form, the Appellant wrote that he “contracted for this company from March 3, 1998 – October 22, 2002.”
6. Finally, the Appellant attached an undated letter on the letterhead of “Joseph Eletto Tranfser, Inc.” stating:  “Please be advised that Mr. Stephen O’Nil work (sic) as a furniture home delivery contractor for our firm from February 1998 through February 2003.  He work (sic) out of our facility [in Westwood, MA].”
7. Scores were released to the Appellant on August 20, 2025. 
8. The Appellant’s ECT&E score was 16.76 out of a maximum 19.01.
9. The Appellant’s total score was 87.29. 
10. On September 15, 2025, the Appellant filed an appeal with M&M, contesting his ECT&E score.  
11. On December 17, 2025, M&M denied the Appellant’s appeal. 
12. On December 26, 2025, the Appellant filed the instant appeal with the Commission. 
13. An eligible list for BPD Sergeant was established on February 13, 2026.   The Appellant is ranked 147^th on that eligible list. 
14. A favorable decision by the Commission has the potential of adjusting the Appellant’s score upward sufficiently to impact his ranking on the eligible list. 
15. After filing his appeal with the Commission, the Appellant provided a Schedule C for tax returns filed in calendar years 2000 and 2002.  On Line 37 — “Cost of labor. Do not include any amounts paid to yourself” — the Appellant’s 2000 Tax Return states:  $32, 240. The “cost of labor” on the Appellant’s 2002 Tax Return states:  $35,500. 
16. Although the BPD could not find a resume attached to the Appellant’s 2007 application to the BPD seeking original appointment, the Appellant submitted a copy of what he claims was the resume that he attached to that 2007 application.  The resume states that he was a self-employed truck driver for Joseph Elito Delivery Company in Westwood, MA from 1998 to 2002.  Specifically, the resume states that he was a “Self-employed contractor operator of furniture delivery truck, supervising 7+ employees and that he his responsibilities included “. . . managing a work crew, conducting employee training, to scheduling efficient delivery truck routes to drivers.”

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 

                Ensuring that proper protocols are in place to verify outside supervisory experience claimed by examination applicants is an essential part of maintaining the integrity of the testing process.  In fact, there are multiple other appeals currently pending before the Commission in which exam applicants allege that M&M failed to take the necessary steps to verify the outside supervisory experience claimed by some applicants. This appeal appears to show otherwise. Here, M&M, after review, effectively rejected a form signed by the Appellant which stated that he had once been self-employed as a truck driver and had supervised multiple employees. In short, M&M determined that additional information was required to support the Appellant’s claim.  Nothing in this decision should be construed as discouraging M&M from performing a rigorous review of such claims. 

                However, for the reasons discussed below, this appeal presents the rare circumstance in which relief is warranted in the form of an order to adjust the Appellant’s ECT&E score upward.  First, unlike other related appeals that have come before the Commission, it is undisputed that the Appellant claimed the outside supervisory experience on the ECT&E component and submitted supporting documentation in a timely manner.  Second, the Appellant signed the employment verification form explicitly stating that he had supervised employees during his self-employment.  Third, while setting aside the reasoning behind granting credit for outside supervisory experience performed over 2 ½ decades ago, it is reasonable to expect that it may take additional time to search for and locate supporting documentation.  For that reason, it was appropriate to review additional documentation that the Appellant was able to produce after filing his appeal with the Commission, which included two tax returns and a resume appearing to support what the Appellant claimed on the EVF – that he had performed supervisory duties from 1998 to 2002 as a self-employed furniture delivery driver. 

Conclusion

                For all the above reasons, the Appellant’s appeal docketed under Docket Number B2-25-320 is hereby allowed.   Pursuant to its authority under Chapter 310 of the Acts of 1993, the Commission hereby orders that:

1. Morris & McDaniel recalculate the Appellant’s examination score, granting him credit for outside supervisory experience between March 3, 1998 and October 22, 2002. 
2. Should the recalculation result in a higher whole score, HRD shall adjust the Appellant’s standing on the eligible list accordingly, prospectively only. 

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:
Stephen M. O’Neil (Appellant) 
Joseph McClellan, Esq. (for BPD)
Nicole Boudreau, Esq. (HRD)