City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 305, 682 N.E.2d 923, 926(1997). An appointing authority will be presumed to have acted in good faith and with honesty. Mayor of Revere v. Civil Service Commn, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 315, 321 n.11, 577 N.E.2d 325, 329 n.11 (1991).

City of Cambridge, 24 MCSR 297 (2010) (interviews used as tie-breaking criteria); St. Pierre v. Fall River School Dept, 22 MCSR 445 (2009) (supervisors rating used in layoffs to break tie in seniority); Bartolomei v. City of Holyoke, 21 MCSR 94 (2008) (noting, without deciding, possible question of using alphabetical order as a tie-breaker); Johnson v. City of Everett, 20 MCSR 295 (2007), citing Cotter v.

City of Cambridge, 23 MLC 28, 36 (1996), affd sub nom. Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association v. Labor Relations Commission, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 1108 (1999). To establish that a public employer has violated the Law, an employee organization must demonstrate that: 1) the employer transferred bargaining unit work to non-unit personnel; 2) the transfer of unit work had an adverse Complaint (cont.)

City of Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303 (1997) (internal citations omitted). Analysis The Appellants claim under consideration in this 2022 non-bypass equity appeal must be defined by his filings under this docket no.: E-22-039. I have carefully scrutinized the contentions the Appellant presented at the April 2022 pre-hearing conference and the arguments he outlines in his written submissions.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997) (burden of proving reasonable justification for a bypass lies with the appointing authority). ANALYSIS The City of Amesbury has failed to establish by a preponderance of credible evidence that it had reasonable justification to bypass Firefighter Allender, the first ranked candidate on the civil service eligible list, for promotion to fire lieutenant.

Anderson & Kreiger LLP One Canal Park, Suite 200 Cambridge, MA 02121 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Dear Attorney Hall: This office received a complaint from Mr. William Gottlieb, dated November 10, 2010, alleging that the Ipswich Finance Committee (the "Committee") violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 18-25.

Anderson & Kreiger LLP One Canal Park, Suite 200 Cambridge, MA 02141 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Dear Attorney Makarious: This office received a complaint from Ethan Handwerker, dated February 12, 2015, alleging that the Lexington Board of Health (the "Board") violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 3OA, 1825. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Board failed to provide Mr.

i,t~v_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-,C"o",ullnt",y_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ City of Medford, " Middlesex Name and Address of Chief Executive Officer Phone # Home Phone #Work Name and Address of Collective Bargaining Agent Ally Jay Sullivan, Sullivan & Reed, LLP 245 First St, 18'" Floor, Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone II Cell 617-827-5537 Phone II Work 617-758,8160 Information o.n Dispute Attach to this petition the following:, The most current

Sullivan and Reed 245 First Street, 18th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 RE: MUP-20-8044, City of Medford Dear Ms. Alexis and Mr.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records May 16, 2025 SPR25/1242 Sergeant Paul Sugrue Cambridge Police Department 125 Sixth Street Cambridge, MA 02142 Dear Sergeant Sugrue: I have received the petition of Nicole Avitabile, Esq., of Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers, appealing the response of the Cambridge Police Department (Department) to a request