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).

She has also worked at the Department of Correction (DOC), where she became the Director of Human Resources before returning to HRD. (Testimony of McInnis) 27 79. Ms. Deeney brought to the meeting with HRD the Appellants EPRS for fiscal year 2013, the Appellants job description (Form 30) and a summary of the Appellants completed Interview Guide. (Testimony of Deeney; Exhibit 10) 80.

Department of Correction, 16 MCSR 54 (2003), affd sub nom, Pimental v. Civil Service Commn, Suffolk Superior Civ. No. SUCV2003-5908 (June 6, 2005); McDonald v. Boston Public Works, 14 MCSR 60 (2001); Sheehan v. Worcester, 11 MCSR 100 (1998); Brindle v. Taunton, 7 MCSR 112 (1994); Tomasian v.

. * The Commission heard live testimony from two representatives from the Department, Erin Schroeder-Withington, Detective, BPD and Devin Taylor, Director of Human Resources, BPD; Daveiga; and Daveigas witness, Gara, Personnel Analyst III, Department of Correction. James 30A, 14(7)(g). The party appealing an administrative decision bears the burden of demonstrating the decisions invalidity. Brackett v.

Department of Correction, 21 MCRS 647, 688 (2008). The Commission is also mindful of the standard of conduct expected of officers of the law. An officer of the law carries the burden of being expected to comport himself or herself in an exemplary fashion. McIsaac v. Civil Serv. Commn, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 473, 474 (1995). [P]olice officers voluntarily undertake to adhere to a higher standard of conduct than that imposed on ordinary citizens.

Department of Correction, 21 MCSR 647, 688 (2008). This principle is particularly apt when the applicant is under consideration for a promotion to a superior position. ANALYSIS HRDs Motion to Dismiss The question of law as to whether BPD was required to obtain HRDs prior review and approval of reasons for bypassing a candidate for promotion has now been definitively decided by the Supreme Judicial Courts recent opinion in Malloch v.

Department of Correction, 13 MCSR 181 (2000), the Commission was presented with an appeal of a correction officer who had been found unfit for duty and temporarily placed on paid administrative leave pending further psychiatric evaluation of his fitness for duty and, about two months later, due to a lack of cooperation in submitting to such evaluations, was removed from administrative leave and placed on unpaid medical leave.

Page 4 August 10,2018 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 commission or

Department of Correction, 22 MCSR 581 (2009) (no bypass where all positions were filled by higher ranking candidates); Centolo vy. Boston Police Dept, 19 MCSR 394 (2006) (no bypass where higher ranked candidates with residency preference selected). See also Breton v. City of New Bedford, 21 MCSR 127 (2008); Bartolomei v. City of Holyoke, 21 MCSR 94 (2008); Bianco v.

Department of Correction, 16 MCSR 54 (2003), affd sub nom, Pimental v. Civil Service 7 Commn, Suffolk Superior Civ. No. SUCV2003-5908 (June 6, 2005); McDonald v. Boston Public Works, 14 MCSR 60 (2001); Sheehan v. Worcester, 11 MCSR 100 (1998); Brindle v. Taunton, 7 MCSR 112 (1994); Tomasian v. Boston Police Dept, 6 MCSR 221 (1993).