On August 11, 2025, the Appellant, Charles Vinciulla, appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 24, after the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD) denied his claim to certain training certification credits and experience credits for non-fire service “supervisory” experience. I held a remote pre-hearing conference on September 8, 2025. The Pre-Hearing Memoranda submitted were deemed Cross Motions for Summary Decision. Pursuant to the Commission’s requests for clarification from both parties, HRD supplemented its motion on September 17, 2025, October 14, 2025, and August 5, 2026; the Appellant supplemented his motion on October 20, 2025, March 25, 2026, May 11, 2026, July 24, 2026 (email) and August 5, 2026 (email). After careful review of the submissions of the parties, HRD’s Cross-Motion is allowed, the Appellant’s Cross Motion is denied, and the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
Undisputed Facts
HRD submitted three exhibits with its Pre-Hearing Memorandum (Resp.Exhs.1 - 3) and re-submitted those same exhibits with its 10/14/25 supplemental memorandum.HRD’s 9/17/25 supplement is marked as Resp. Exh. 4 and the document attached to HRD’s 8/5/26 supplement as Resp. Exh. 5. I marked the set of documents submitted with the Appellant’s Pre-Hearing Memorandum as App. Exh. 1, the three sets of documents submitted with the Appellant’s 10/20/25 supplement as App. Exhs. 2 through 4; the Appellant’s 3/25/26 supplement with hyperlinks to two documents as App. Exh. 5, and the document attached to the Appellant’s 5/11/26 supplement as App. Exh. 6. Based on the submissions of the parties, the following facts are not disputed:
- The Appellant, Charles Vinciulla, is a Firefighter with the City of Waltham Fire Department (WFD). He was appointed to the WFD in 2003 and has served continuously as a WFD Firefighter, save for several periods of appointment from 2016 through 2024 as an acting, temporary or provisional Fire Lieutenant. (Claim of Appeal; App. Pre-Hearing Memorandum, App.Exh.1 [WFD Employment Verification Form])
- The Appellant took the Statewide Fire Lieutenant Promotional Examination administered by the Massachusetts Human Resources Division (HRD) on April 12, 2025. The examination consisted of a written Technical Knowledge (TK) component, a Situational Judgement Test (SJT), and an Experience, Certification/Training/Licenses and Education (ECT&E) component that required the submission of an on-line ECT&E claim form which the Appellant duly submitted on April 19, 2025. (Claim of Appeal; App. Pre-Hearing Memorandum; Resp. Pre-Hearing Memorandum; Resp.Exh.3)
- The Appellant’s ECT&E claim form included, in relevant part, the following:
Outside Experience. Indicate how many year(s) of experience you have outside the fire service. This includes military, maritime service and private companies.
[ANSWER]: No Experience.
Relevant Certifications. As of April 12, 2025, select all of the certifications that you have successfully obtained. . . . in a 3-tiered system. There will be three separate ECT&E questions that will capture the candidates [sic] relevant and accepted certifications. . . All training courses require documen tation in the form of an awarded Pro-Board or FEMA.MEMA certificate [or] a Pro Board or FEMA transcript. . . .
Q.12.Tier 1 certifications you have completed
[ANSWER] Fire Instructor I (Pro Board), Fire Officer I (Pro Board)
Q.13. Please select all Tier 2 certifications you have completed.
[ANSWER] Public Fire Educator. PFALE (Certification of Completion)
Q.14.Please select all Tier 3 certifications you have completed.
[ANSWER] No certifications earned
(Resp.Exh.5) [FN1]
- By email on June 12, 2025, HRD provided the Appellant with his ECT&E score:
Experience: 44.66 points out of a Maximum of 52 Experience points
Certification/Training: 18.00 points out of a Maximum of 28 Certification/Training points
Education: 20.00 points out of a Maximum of 20 Education points. [FN2]
HRD explained that :
Your ECT&E claim was amended in the following way:
Q(4): Work experience Claimed (22 Years) Recalculated to (21 Years) Acting time subtracted; Q(13) [Tier 2] Certifications earned Claimed (1 certification earned) Recalculated to (3 certifications earned)
Note: An amendment to an ECT&E claim is made when a candidate's answers to an ECT&E question are not accepted or they have been recalculated based on the submitted supporting documentation. The candidate's original response and the reason for a denial or a recalculation appears following the question number.
If there was no amendment to a question, the submitted answer was accepted.
(App.Exh.3 [HRD Score Notice]
- Among the documents submitted with the Appellant’s original ECT&E claim was a letter from the Chair of the Sport Management of the BSBA Program at Mount Ida College attesting to the Appellant’s “teaching and administrative duties” while employed at Mount Ida College from 1996 to 1998, teaching fitness classes and serving as a “interim Head Volleyball coach, Intramural Director, Strength and Conditioning Coordinator, and Golf Tourney Committee Member.” The letter did not specify the hours the Appellant performed these duties. (App. Pre-Hearing Memo, App.Exh.1 [Mt. Ida letter dated 8/18/2019])
- After receiving his initial score notice, the Appellant requested a review of his ECT&E score and, after review, HRD informed the Appellant that “the ICS [ICS 100, ICS 200 and ICS700] classes you were seeking credit for were not claimed in your ECT&E application. Unfortunately, we are unable to give credit for anything new not claimed in the application submission.” HRD advised the Appellant of his right to appeal to the Commission. (App.Supp.Exh.3 [HRD email (undated) from Elizabeth Belmonte) [FN3]
- In his Claim of Appeal to the Commission, the Appellant stated:
My name is Charles Vinciulla. I have been a Waltham Fire Fighter since April of 2003. My appeal mainly is due to the fact that I have certifications in ICS 100, 200, 700 and have had them for almost 20 years. These certifications are now a prerequisite in order to obtain Firefighter 1 and 2 pro board certification and entrance to the Massachusetts Fire Academy. I have included attachments for the certifications. I have received credit for Firefighter 1 and 2, however was under the assumption that since ICS is a prerequisite for this, I would receive credit for those also. An honest mistake. I am not trying to obtain credit for something I just did this past month. . . . I also do not think I got any credit for teaching in college of [sic] which it should be considered supervisory.
(Claim of Appeal)
- As to outside [Non-Fire Service] supervisory experience, the ECT&E preparation guide states, in relevant part:
Claims may also be submitted for employment with supervisory responsibilities in a non-firefighter position. . . . candidates must submit all the following details:
- A letter on business letterhead with an original signature indicating start/end dates of employment.
- Full- or part-time position. If the claim is for part-time employment, the letter must indicate how many actual hours were worked or the number of hours worked per week. This will be calculated under the prorated, part-time calculation (172 hour/month).
- Supervisory responsibility with official duties listed. Duties include supervising staff and work processes, enforcing policies and procedures, monitoring employee productivity, and providing feedback, setting performance goals, assisting with scheduling, employee corrective measures
- For documentation from a non-governmental company (private or non-profit organization), the tax ID must be included in the supporting documentation.
. . .
(Resp.Exh.3)
- As to Training Certification, the ECT&E Preparation Guide states, in relevant part:
. . .
Fire trainings and certifications will be accepted in a 3-tiered system. . . . Tier 3 is lowest value of points and tier 1 is the highest value of points. Select the relevant certification held within each tier. There is no limit of certifications claimed per tier; however, the maximum number of total trainings and certifications a candidate can be awarded is eight.
Tier 1:
- Fire Officer I (ProBoard)
- Fire Instructor I (Proboard)
Tier 2:
- Firefighter I (Select both for a “FF I/II Certificate”) (ProBoard)
- Firefighter II (Select both for a “FF I/II Certificate”) (ProBoard)
- Public Fire Educator/PFALSE (Certificate of Completion)
Tier 3:
• ICS 100.C: Introduction to the Incident Command System (FEMA/MEMA)
• ICS 200: Basic Incident Command System for Initial Response (FEMA/MEMA)
• ICS 700: An Introduction to the national incident Management System (FEMA/MEMA)
Supporting Documentation for Claiming Certifications and Trainings:
- Screenshots & PDFs: images or copies of the transcripts from either the ProBoard or FEMA website showing the trainings and certifications, as well as clearly showing the candidate’s name, are preferred and accepted.
- Certifications: copies of each individual certification from one of the approved certifying agencies.
- Fire Prevention Officer Credentialing: must not be expired and supporting documents submitted must show certification date, which must be within 3 years of the exam date.
- Full certification is required to attain credit for a training. For example, submitting certification of only the practical or only the written portion of a training will NOT be accepted.
NOTE: Mass Fire Academy transcripts, or screenshots from the learning management system, are NOT acceptable. Certificates of attendance are NEVER accepted.
(Resp.Exh.3 [all emphasis in original])
- The Appellant currently holds the following FEMA ICS certifications:
ICS 100 – issued on 4/3/2006
ICS 200 – issued on 6/5/2026
ICS 700 – issued on 9/30/2005
(App. Pre-Hearing Memorandum, App.Exhs.1& 3 [FEMA certificates])
- The Appellant submitted a series of documents to the Commission to establish his contention that proof of his certifications as Firefighter I/II should suffice as proof that also held the ICS 100, ICS200 and ICS700 certifications, because the latter are a condition to earning the former. These documents included:
- Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 dated February 28, 2003 – Requiring the development of a National Incident Management System (NIMS) to “provide a consistent nationwide approach for Federal, State and local governments to work effectively and efficiently together to prepare for, respond to and recover from domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size or complexity”
- Massachusetts Governor’s E.O.469 dated September 29, 2005 - Designation of the National Incident Management System as the Commonwealth’s incident management standard and ordering “all cities, towns, and other municipal entities to certify that they have adopted and implemented NIMS as a condition of receiving Federal preparedness grant awards.”
- The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Massachusetts NIMS Advisory Group Incident Command System (ICS) Training Flowchart dated April 2014 stating, in relevant part, that someone “likely to assume a supervisory position within the ICS” must complete ICS 700, ICS 100 and ICS 200 . . . . “
- A form letter from the Massachusetts Fire Academy dated January 17, 2025 stating “Every student will be required to submit a certificate of completion prior to training day 5 for ICS 100, ICS 700 . . . .”
- An email from the Massachusetts Fire Academy dated April 8, 2026, stating, in relevant part:
[T]he Massachusetts Firefighting Academy began to teach ICS in the early 2000’s when the Recruit Training Program was 12 weeks long. Recruits received lectures on both ICS-700 and NIMS ICS-100 and were then tested on their knowledge.
In June 2013, the Rules and Regulations for the Career Firefighter Training Program were revised by the Massachusetts Fire Training Council to require that Recruits take exams for NIMS 700 and NIMS 100. In the June 2013 revision of the Rules and Regulations for the Career Firefighter Training Program, Section VII GRADING SYSTEM FOR WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS, subsection "A.", bullet point #6, it states that recruits will take a NIMS 700 exam on TD-3A (Training Day) and a 100 exam on TD-13B.
In 2014, when the Recruit Training Program was transitioned to a 9-week training program, Recruits were required to complete ICS Training on their own time, outside of MFA training program. Lastly, within the last year, the Career Recruit Program has shifted to require completion of ICS 100/200, as it better aligns with the current incident command training requirements. We no longer require ICS 700, as it is considered “entry level” training.
(App.Exhs.4, 5 & 6)
- The Appellant is ranked fourth on the current eligible list for WFD Fire Lieutenant. The additional ECT&E points allowed for three ICS certifications would have changed the Appellant’s final exam score from 79.008 to 79.883, thus increasing his rounded score from 79 to 80, and moving him up one place on the eligible list. (Resp.Exh.4; Administrative Notice [Waltham Fire Lieutenant Eligible List])
Applicable Legal Standard
A motion to dispose of an appeal, in whole or in part, via summary decision may be allowed by the Commission pursuant to 801 C.M.R. 1.01(7)(h) 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 Dept, 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 undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the Appellant, establish that this appeal must be dismissed.
Section 22 of Chapter 31 of the General Laws prescribes that “[t]he administrator [HRD] shall determine the passing requirements of examinations.” According to the Personnel Administration Rules (PAR) 6(1)(b), “[t]he grading of the subject of training and experience as a part of a promotional examination shall be based on a schedule approved by the administrator [HRD] which shall include credits for elements of training and experience related to the position for which the examination is held.” Pursuant to Section 24 of Chapter 31, “. . . the commission shall not allow credit for training or experience unless such training or experience was fully stated in the training and experience sheet filed by the applicant at the time designated by the administrator [HRD]”.
The Commission repeatedly has held that consistency and equal treatment are fundamental as important hallmarks of the basic merit principles under civil service law. DiGiando v. HRD, 37 MCSR 252 (2024). The Commission generally has deferred to HRD’s expertise and discretion to establish reasonable requirements, consistent with basic merit principles, for crafting, administering, and scoring examinations. In particular, in deciding prior appeals, the Commission has concluded that, as a general rule, HRD’s insistence on compliance with its established examination requirements for claiming and scoring training and experience credits was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. See Helms v. HRD, 38 MSCR 147 (2025); Bell v. HRD, 38 MCSR 44 (2025); Donovan v. HRD, 38 MCSR 60 (2025); Weaver v. HRD, 37 MCSR 313 (2024); Medeiros v. HRD, 37 MCSR 56 (2024); Dunn v. HRD, 37 MCSR 45 (2024); Kiley v. HRD, 36 MCSR 442 (2024); Evans v. HRD, 35 MCSR 108 (2022); Turner v. HRD, 34 MCSR 249 (2022); Amato v. HRD, 34 MCSR 177 (2021); Wetherbee v. HRD, 34 MCSR 173 (2021); Russo v. HRD, 34 MCSR 156 (2021); Villavizar v. HRD, 34 MCSR 64 (2021); Holska v. HRD, 33 MCSR 282 (2020); Flynn v. HRD, 33 MCSR 237 (2020); Whoriskey v. HRD, 33 MCSR 158 (2020); Bucella v. HRD, 32 MCSR 226 (2019); Dupont v. HRD, 31 MCSR 184 (2018); Pavone v. HRD, 28 MCSR 611 (2015); and Carroll v. HRD, 27 MCSR 157 (2014).
First, as to the Appellant’s claim for ECT&E credit for non-fire service “supervisory” experience, HRD reasonably denied that claim. The Appellant’s claim form stated “No experience” in the outside supervisory category. The failure to make a claim for such outside experience “in the training or experience sheet”, as required by G.L. c. 31, § 24, precludes the Commission from now considering that issue. See, e.g., Giraldo v. Boston Police Department, 39 MCSR 220 (2026); Belgrave v. Boston Police Department, 39 MCSR 203 (2026); Walsh v. Boston Police Department, 39 MCSR 181 (2026). Also, the Appellant’s documentation regarding his college experience did not include the required detail – hours expended and specific supervisory duty performed as a college teacher and coach – prescribed by the ECT&E Preparation Guide. The absence of the necessary information is an additional reason why HRD reasonably denied the Appellant credit for his experience as a college instructor.
Second, HRD also reasonably denied the Appellant’s claim to additional ECT&E credit for his three ICS certifications. The fact that the Appellant held those certifications (ICS 100, ICS200 & ICS 700) is not disputed. It is also undisputed that the Appellant did not claim those certifications on his ECT&E claim form as required by G.L. c. 31, § 24, which, as stated above, precludes the Commission from considering this claim as a matter of law.
I also have considered the Appellant’s argument that his omission of a claim for his “Tier 3” ICS certifications presents a unique case because those certifications were a prerequisite to the “Tier 2” certifications he did claim for Firefighter I/II. HRD contends that the Appellant’s argument is not supported by the evidence and should not excuse the Appellant from stating “No Experience” in the Tier 3 category and failing to list those specific certifications as reasonably required by the ECT&E Preparation Guide and claim form. I agree with HRD.
The documentation that the Appellant provided does not, on its face, expressly state that ICS certifications are a necessary prerequisite to anyone who holds Firefighter I/II certifications. In fact, the documentation reasonably permits an inference that, at various points in time, the two categories of certifications DID NOT and NOW DO NOT go hand-in-hand. It may be true that the Fire Academy once taught ICS courses, but the documentation established that completing ALL THREE certifications involved here was never a requirement. It appears that, at some point in time, ICS 700 and ICS 100 were made conditions for completing the Fire Academy, but ICS 200 never was and ICS 700 is no longer required. I am persuaded that it would impose an unreasonable burden on HRD to review every candidate’s ECT&E claim to determine what, if any, ICS certifications were required at the time that a specific candidate received a Firefighter I/II certification or “likely” served as an incident commander. Moreover, regulatory mandates do not equate to proof that a candidate actually held a particular certification on the examination date. HRD reasonably placed responsibility to establish those facts on the candidate.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, HRD’s Motion for Summary Decision is granted and the Appellant’s appeal under Docket Number B2-25-189 is 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 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:
Charles Vinciulla (Appellant)
Michael J. Owens, Esq. (for Respondent)
- A Pro Board Certification Registry search document provided to HRD included verification that the Appellant had received Certifications for Firefighter I/II, Fire Instructor I and Fire Officer I. (App.Exhs.1 & 2 [Pro Board Search])
- The 18.00 total certification points awarded by HRD included 7 points for two Tier 1 Pro Board certifications - Fire Officer I & Fire Instructor I; 2 points as a credit for his EMT certification and nine points for three allowed Tier 2 certifications - Firefighter I/II and Public Fire Educator/PFALSE. (Administrative Notice [2025 Statewide Fire Captain Scoring Guide])
- HRD does not dispute that the Appellant’s appeal to the Commission was timely.
