The parties acknowledge that clerical employees may not have the necessary experience to maintain security procedures (to identify individual whose pictures or information appears in the Sex Offender Registry book or No Trespass/Restraining Order Manual), but clerical employees will provide information to the proper school authorities when they believe or have actual knowledge that a breach of security has taken place. 23 ARTICLE 26 REDUCTION IN FORCE

The parties acknowledge that clerical employees may not have the necessary experience to maintain security procedures (to identify individual whose pictures or information appears in the Sex Offender Registry book or No Trespass/Restraining Order Manual), but clerical employees will provide information to the proper school authorities when they believe or have actual knowledge that a breach of security has taken place. 23 ARTICLE 26 REDUCTION IN FORCE

Group C shall receive 3% of top step Patrolmans pay (step 29) Firearms Licensing, Arson, Crime Prevention, Detail Officer, Computer Technical Advisor, Evidence Officer, Sex Offender Registry Officer, Accident Reconstruction Expert, Code Enforcement Officer, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, Child Safety Seat Technician, Firearms Instructor. Group D shall receive 1% of top step Patrolmans pay (step 29) Bicycle Officers, Motorcycle Officers.

(Sex Offender Registry Information), publicly-accessible Massachusetts CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) and national background checks.

Appointment subject to SORI (Sex Offender Registry Information) and publicly-accessible Massachusetts CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) background checks.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the sex offender registry board issues a stay ofa final classification in a sex offender registry board proceeding, then such stay shall be for not more than 60 days but if a court issues a stay of a final classification in a court appeal held pursuant to section 178M of chapter 6, then such hearing shall be.expedited and such stay shall be for not more than 60 days, without wiitten findings and good cause shown.

Sex Offender Registry Board, 444 Mass. 1009 reconsider their decisions. However, this (2005) (citing Stow v. Bologna, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 612, 615 (1992)). authority must be used sparingly if administrative decisions are to have resolving force on which persons can rely. Stow v. Bologna, 32 Mass. App. Ct at 616.

Therefore | am considering the allegation. 3 At the in-person investigation, the Union President also argued that the Employer was not legally permitted to conduct CORI and SORIs (Criminal Offender Record Information and Sex Offender Registry Information, respectively) on applicants, and that the requirement that applicants complete pre-employment medical and psychological examinations violates the American with Disabilities Act.

Sex Offender Registry Board, 459 Mass. 603 (2011); Costa v. Fall River Housing Auth., 453 Mass. 614, 627 (2009). It is the purview of the hearing officer to determine credibility of testimony presented to the Commission. [T]he assessing of the credibility of witnesses is a preserve of the [Commission] upon which a court conducting judicial review treads with great reluctance. E.g., Leominster v.

The additional duty positions are: Safety Officer, Firearms Licensing, Arson, Crime Prevention, Detail Officer, Computer Technical Advisor, Evidence Officer and Sex Offender Registry Officer. The Union shall provide to the Chief of Police job descriptions and performance review criteria for the above positions prior to July 1, 2006.

Sex Offender Registry Board, 444 Mass. 1009 (2005) (citing Stow v. Bologna, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 612, 615 (1992)) (in the absence of statutory limitations, administrative agencies generally retain inherent authority to reconsider their decisions). Responses to the show cause letter are due no later than September 18, 2015 and replies, if any, are due seven (7) days later. Very truly yours, COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS aie Souk t?

Sex Offender Registry Board, 1009 (2005) (citing Stow v. Bologna, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 612, 615 (1992)). However, this authority must be used sparingly if administrative decisions are to have resolving force on which persons can rely. Stow v. Bologna, 32 Mass. App. Ct at 616. Here, Somerville issued while the Hull appeals were pending and there is no dispute that Somerville renders the CERBs Order unenforceable. raised in Stow are not present here.