Amand v Department of Correction, Docket No. G1-13-193. In view of the limitations on the relief in this text, I asked Mr. Schifone the reason for this appeal. Mr.

Department of Correction, 21 MCSR 647, 688 (2008). It is the purview of the hearing officer to determine the credibility of the testimony presented through the witnesses who appear before the Commission. [T]he assessing of the credibility of witnesses is a preserve of the [commission] upon which a court conducting judicial review treads with great reluctance. E.g., Leominster v.

The Department of Correction was initially named as the Respondent in this Appeal.

Radochia applied for a position with the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and was bypassed each time for unsatisfactory background check, failure to receive the recommendation of the interview panel, and unsatisfactory criminal history check, respectively. (Exh. 2A) 2009 Firefighter Application 6. Mr.

Department of Correction, 32 MCSR 377 (2019) and cases cited.

Department of Correction, 13 MCSR 159 (2000) (Commission upholds bypass where applicant's answers to situational scenarios did not comply with department policies and procedures and failed to demonstrate an ability to lead); McMahon v. Town of Brookline, 20 MCSR 24 (2007) (poor interview performance can stand alone as the sole basis for bypass where there is no evidence of any inappropriate motivations on the part of the Appointing Authority).

Department of Correction, 21 MCSR 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 8 an exemplary fashion." Mclsaac v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 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.

Department of Correction, 21 MCSR 647, 688 (2008). CONCLUSION Applying these applicable standards in the circumstances of the present case, the Commission finds that Boston Police Department was reasonably justified in its decision to bypass the Appellant for appointment. The volume of incidents on both Mr. ORourkes BOP and driving record justify BPDs conclusion about Mr.

L. c. 66, 10(B) states in relevant part: The home address, personal email 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