City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997)(emphasis added). However, the governing statute, G.L. c. 31, 2(b), gives the Commissions de novo review broad scope to evaluate the legal basis of the appointing authority's action and it is not necessary for the Commission to find that the appointing authority acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Id.

See generally, G.L.c.31,1 (basis merit principles means recruiting, selecting and advancing of employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge and skills, assuring fair treatment of all applicants and protecting employees from arbitrary and capricious actions); City of Cambridge v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303 (1997) (internal citations omitted). Analysis I have carefully scrutinized the contentions the Appellant presented at the pre-hearing conference, the motion hearing, and the arguments he outlined in his written submissions filed under this docket number. I discern no claims or contentions that have not actually been, or could not have been, advanced in Docket No.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Comm'n, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997).

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ONE ASHBURTON PLACE BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 (617) 727-2200 www.mass.gov/ago MARTHA COAKLEY ATTORNEY GENERAL June 30,2014 OML 2014-73 Susan Flannery Library Director Cambridge Public Library 449 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02138 RE: Open Meeting Law Comnlaint Dear Ms.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, City 43 Mass.App.Ct. of Leominster_v. Stratton, 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 1102 (1997). See also rev.den., 728, (2003); Police Dept of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 440 Mass. 1108 408, 411, rev.den., 726 NE.2d 417 (2000); Melsaac v. Civil Service Commn, 38 Mass App.Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 331, rev.den., 390 Mass. 1102 (1983).

He would aspire as Fire Chief to bring Quincy up to a 1, the highest rating, comparable to the City of Cambridge. He said that achievement would reassure citizens that Quincy was providing the best possible fire protection and service, as well to bringing down the cost of municipal property insurance and private homeowners and business insurance rates. I found Deputy Chief Smyths testimony on this subject to be sincere and accurate.

See, e.g., City of Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, 682 N.E.2d 923 (1997); School Comm. of Brockton v. Civil Serv. Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 486, 488, 684 N.E.2d 620 (1997); Town of Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 447 Mass. 814, 823, (2006); Police Dep't of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 411, rev.den., 726 N.E.2d 417 (2000); McIsaac v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 38 Mass App.Ct.473,477 (1995); Town of Watertown v.