Department of Correction, 27 MCSR 327 (2014)(Correction Program Officer appeal denied); Messier v. Department of Correction, 13 MCSR 204 (2000)(Clerk III appeal denied); Lefebvre v. Department of Early Education and Care, 22 MCSR 149 (2009)(Administrative Assistant II appeal allowed); McCollum v. Department of Environmental Protection, 15 MCSR 23 (2002)(Environmental Engineer VI appeal denied); Towns v.

Department of Correction, 91 Mass. App. Ct. 1108, 2017 WL 780976, *4 (Feb. 28, 2017) (Rule 1:28) (rejecting claim of sovereign immunity with respect to plaintiff correction officers entitlement to prejudgment interest on back wages award). See also Thibodeau v. Seekonk, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 69, 72-74 (2001) (determining that under G.L. c, 231, 6C, interest on back pay award to firefighter should be calculated from date he was demoted).

Department of Correction, 27 MCSR 582 (2014), citing, Conner v. Department of Correction, 27 MCSR 556 (2014) (DALA Magistrates decision, adopted by the Commission, analyzing the requirements of a reasonable review of criminal record, with specific reference to changes in the CORI law and regulation, including the Governors Executive Order applicable to public employment). See also, Rodrigues v.

All records regarding an August 2017 conference call between EOHHS, the Massachusetts Office of Grants Management and Research, Department of Corrections, USAO-MA, and National Governors Association; and 10. All records regarding a 'CVE stakeholder meeting' in September 2015, with EOHHS, USAO-MA, DMH, Department of Public Health, Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Boston Public Schools, and Boston Children' s Hospital."

The Department provided the contact information for the Suffolk County District Attorneys Office, as well as the Supreme Judicial Court and the Department of Correction. The Department further states that the records are exempt under Exemptions (a), (c), and (f). Public records in the possession, custody or control of a records custodian In its response, the Department states that it . . . has physical custody of a copy of the homicide records.

The Department provided the contact information for the Suffolk County District Attorneys Office, as well as the Supreme Judicial Court and the Department of Correction. The Department further states that the records are exempt under Exemptions (a), (c), and (f). Public records in the possession, custody or control of a records custodian In its response, the Department states that it . . . has physical custody of a copy of the homicide records.

All records regarding an August 2017 conference call between EOHHS, the Massachusetts Office of Grants Management and Research, Department of Corrections, USAO-MA, and National Governors Association; and 10. All records regarding a 'CVE stakeholder meeting' in September 2015, with EOHHS, USAO-MA, DMH, Department of Public Health, Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Boston Public Schools, and Boston Children's Hospital."

In its April 9thresponse the DAO asserts "[alfter speaking with the Department of Corrections, this office agrees that additional reasons Exemption (a) Exemption (a), lmown as the statutory exemption, permits the withholding of records that are: specifically or by necessary implication exempted from disclosure by statute A governmental entity may use the statutory exemption as a basis for withholding requested materials where the language of the exempting

General Laws Chapter 30A, 1(2), defines "agency" as: [A]ny department, board, commission, division or authority of the state government or subdivision of any of the foregoing, or official of the state government, authorized by law to make regulations or to conduct adjudicatory proceedings, but does not include the following: the legislative and judicial departments; the governor and council; military or naval boards, commissions or officials; the department

Department of Correction, 10 MCSR 79 (1997); Springer v. Saugus, 8 MCSR 154 (1995). For this reason, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Greeleys E&E appeal under G.L. c. 31, 24. Possibly anticipating this result, Mr. Greeley asks the Commission to consider his request by initiating an investigation under G.L. c. 31, 2(a). The Commission maintains authority under Section 2(a) to conduct investigations.