Department of Correction, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 1110 (2004) (unpublished), affirming, 14 MCSR 361 (2001); Dallas v. Commissioner of Public Health, 1 Mass.App.Ct. 768, 771 (1974) citing Sullivan v. Commissioner of Commerce & Dev., 351 Mass, 462, 465 (1966) See also, Phillips v. Department of Public Health, 24 MCSR 25 (2012) and cases cited; Braz v. New Bedford School Dept, 23 MCSR 757 (2010); Morin v. Boston School Comm., 23 MCSR 768 (2010); Burns v.

With the exception of the Department of Correction, when executive agencies 23 interviewed bargaining unit members about workplace policy violations, investigators took 24 handwritten notes and did not electronically record the interviews.2 Prior to January of 25 2019, the Commonwealths Code of Conduct Policy (Code of Conduct), incorporated in 26 the collective bargaining agreements for Units 1, 3 and 6, requires in Section 4E that 27 bargaining unit

The Charging Party had clerical staff at the Department of Correction, which did not perform any paramilitary functions. Day 2 Tr. 24, ln 11-24 and 25, ln 1. DOC Policy 103 DOC 522 provides in relevant part that, All inquiries into staff misconduct that may result in administrative action shall be audio recorded. Respondent Exhibit a, 522-6. DOC employees are specifically unable to object to being recorded.

While OER Director claimed DOC perform no para-military functions, it is public record that DOC runs the prison system of at least 16 institutions, hires armed guards, and operates within a chain of command. https://www.mass.gov/orgs/massachusetts-department-of-correction. 3 COE investigates allegations of sexual harassment, discrimination, and domestic violence, matters of the utmost sensitivity and confidentiality. 4 Day 2: p. 39, ln. 8-12. 2 3|

The statute provides in relevant part: The home address and home telephone number of law enforcement, judicial, prosecutorial, department of youth services, department of children and families, department of correction and any other public safety and criminal justice system personnel, and of unelected general court personnel, shall not be public records in the custody of the employers of such personnel or the public employee retirement administration

Page 3 July 9,201 8 The statute provides in relevant part: The home address and home telephone number of law enforcement, judicial, prosecutorial, department of youth services, department of children and families, department of correction and any other public safety and criminal justice system personnel, and of unelected general court personnel, shall not be public records in the custody of the employers of such personnel or the public employee retirement

Department of Corrections, 12 MCSR 187 (1999). of Personnel Administration, Hebb v. Town of West Bridgewater & Department 6 MCSR 43 (1993). This idea is harmonious with the fact that the Commission affords a great deal of discretion in appointing candidates to the Appointing Authority. Goldblatt v. Corporation Counsel of Boston, 360 Mass. 660 (1971). Mayor of Revere v. Civil Service Commission, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 315, 320-321 (1991).

Commonwealth Department of Corrections 3. 4. Representative to contact John B. Langan, Director Office of Employee Relations of Massachusetts Telephone Number 617-878-9792 5. Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) Fax Number 100 Cambridge Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02114 6. Employee Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union 8. 7.

Department of Correction, 35 MCSR 227 (2022); Cuhna v. Department of Correction, 34 MSCR 224 (2021); Bergeron v. Town of Falmouth, 29 MCSR 546 (2016). CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the BFDs Motion to Dismiss is allowed, and the Appellants appeal under Case No. B2-23-109 is dismissed. Civil Service Commission /s/Paul M. Stein Paul M.

Department of Correction, 21 MCSR 647, 688 (2008). That discretion, however, is not absolute or unreviewable by the Commission. An appointing authority may rely on information, including allegations of misconduct obtained from third-party sources, as the basis for bypassing a candidate, provided it was lawfully obtained and subjected to an impartial and reasonably thorough independent review. See Beverly.78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189 (2010).

Department of Correction, 59 Mass.App.Ct. 1110 (2004) (unpublished), affirming, 14 MCSR 361 (2001); Dallas v. Commissioner of Public Health, 1 Mass.App.Ct. 768, 771 (1974) citing Sullivan v. Commissioner of Commerce & Dev., 351 Mass, 462, 465 (1966) See also, Phillips v. Department of Public Health, 24 MCSR 25 (2012) and cases cited; Braz v. New Bedford School Dept, 23 MCSR 757 (2010); Morin v. Boston School Comm., 23 MCSR 768 (2010); Burns v.

Department of Correction, 20 MCSR 414 (2007) (78 was lowest score of selected candidates; appellant scored 73); Lindgren v. Department of Correction, 20 MCSR 253 (2007) (Appellant scored 91.00; selected candidates scored 98%); Sheehan v. Town of Hudson, 19 MCSR 17 (2006) (scores of 90.00 [appellant], 78.00 and 75.00); Sabourin v. Town of Natick, 18 MCSR 79 (2005) (On the exam, Sabourin scored an 86 and Brien scored a 79); LaRoche v.

EOPSS further explains that "[a]n individual who sought to maximize damage to persons in the Commonwealth would find this information useful insofar as it would provide that individual with detail about the location of strategic security measures and emergency preparedness in Department of Correction facilities, ... " In a telephone conversation with a Public Records Division staff attorney, EOPSS expressed its concern that the redacted information

EOPSS further explains that "[a]n individual who sought to maximize damage to persons in the Commonwealth would find this information useful insofar as it would provide that individua.l with detail about the location of strategic security measures and emergency preparedness in Department of Correction facilities .... " It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record.