Decision  Zanellato, George v. Bridgewater Police Department 4/16/26

Date:	04/16/2026
Organization:	Civil Service Commission
Docket Number:	G2-25-070

• Appearance for Appellant: Amber Cohen, Esq.
• Appearance for Respondent: Richard Massina, Esq.
• Hearing Officer: Paul M. Stein

The Commission dismissed the appeal of a Bridgewater police sergeant who was bypassed for promotion to lieutenant in 2023 as untimely and moot after the Commission, in another matter, declined to vacate the original promotion. 

Decision

On March 14, 2025, the Appellant, George M. Zanellato (Appellant), a sergeant in the Bridgewater Police Department (BPD), appealed to the Civil Service Commission (Commission), pursuant to G.L. c. 31, § 2(b), contesting the decision of the BPD to bypass him for promotional appointment to lieutenant.  I held a remote pre-hearing conference on April 8, 2025.  The appeal was placed in abeyance pending the outcome of a related investigation being conducted by the Commission into alleged irregularities in the BPD’s 2023 promotional process, the results of which would have a direct impact on the jurisdiction of the Commission to proceed with this appeal.  An Interim Decision related to that investigation is being issued the same day as this decision.  This appeal is now ripe for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction as the Appellant’s appeal is untimely.

Undisputed Facts

1. The Appellant, George M. Zanellato, is a police sergeant with the Town of Bridgewater’s Police Department (BPD).
2. The Appellant took and passed the April 2023 BPD assessment center promotional examination for Police Lieutenant.
3. The Appellant was ranked second on the eligible list established from the results of the examination, behind Sergeant Kelly Chuilli, who was ranked first, and ahead of then-Sergeant John Hennessey, who was ranked third.
4. After conducting a private interview with each candidate, BPD Police Chief Christopher Delmonte appointed Hennessey, the third-ranked candidate on the eligible list, to the position of permanent BPD Police Lieutenant, bypassing both Sergeant Chuilli and the Appellant.
5. The first-ranked candidate, Sergeant Chuilli, timely appealed her bypass to the Commission, which was docketed under CSC Case No. G2-23-179 (the Chuilli Appeal).
6. The Appellant did not appeal his bypass connected to the 2023 promotion of Sergeant Hennessey within sixty days of being notified of the BPD’s decision.
7. By decision in the Chuilli Appeal dated February 6, 2025, the Commission allowed Sergeant’s Chuilli’s bypass appeal, vacated the promotion of Hennessey, and ordered a redo of the promotional process, subject to reconsideration on or before March 6, 2025 should the parties to the Chuilli Appeal reach a mutual agreement as to an alternative form of relief.
8. The BPD subsequently created a third lieutenant position and promoted Sergeant Chuilli to that position effective March 6, 2025.
9. In connection with the Chuilli Appeal, the Commission received a motion for reconsideration of the Commission’s February 6, 2025 decision. 
10.  On April 17, 2025, the Commission amended its February 6, 2025 decision to provide the following relief: (1) the promotion of Kelly Chuilli to permanent BPD Police Lieutenant was deemed effective as of July 13, 2023; and (2) Lt. Hennessey’s appointment to the position of BPD Police Lieutenant was converted to a temporary appointment, retroactive to July 14, 2023, pending a further independent investigation into allegations that certain MPD superior officers may have been involved in alleged misconduct related to the examination process. 
11.  By separate order, the Commission opened an investigation into the alleged misconduct under CSC Tracking No. I-25-280 (the BPD Investigation).
12.  By an Interim Order issued the same day as this decision, the Commission has ordered that the civil service status of Lieutenant Hennessey be restored to permanent status, retroactive to his original promotion date of July 14, 2023.

Applicable Legal Standard

     The Commission may at any time dismiss an appeal ab initio “for lack of jurisdiction.”  801 C.M.R. 107(g)(3).  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 for lack of jurisdiction and mootness. 

More than two decades ago, the Commission adopted by rule a Bypass Appeal Statute of Limitations that allows bypassed candidates to file an appeal with the Commission up to 60 days “from receipt of … notice” of the bypass reasons.  Mel v. Boston Police Dep’t, 37 MCSR 33 (2024).

To the extent that the Appellant seeks to revive his right of appeal from the original 2023 bypass decision, this appeal must be dismissed as untimely, as the time to appeal from that original bypass decision expired sixty days after the promotion of the lower-ranked candidate on July 14, 2023.  The Appellant did not file his appeal here until March of 2025.  Further, to the extent that the Appellant claims that the Commission’s prior decisions in the Chuilli Appeal reopened the door for him to demand a redo of the 2023 promotional process, that door was closed by the Commission’s Interim Decision referenced above restoring Hennessey to his status as a permanent lieutenant. 

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Appellant’s appeal under Docket Number G2-25-070 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 April 16, 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: 
Amber Cohen, Esq. (for Appellant) 
Richard Massina, Esq. (for Respondent)
Sheila Gallagher, Esq. (HRD)