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.

Department of Corrections, 21 MCSR 647, 688 (2008). This principle is particularly apt 11 when the applicant is under consideration for a promotion to a senior level command staff position. It is the purview of the hearing officer to determine the credibility of the testimony presented through the witnesses who appear before the commission.

Department of Corrections, 10 MCSR 79 (1997); Springer v. Town of Saugus, 8 MCSR 154 (1995). The Appellant argues that since the Appointing Authority failed to enclose the requisite statutes, specifically M.G.L. c. 31, 42, the statutory time should be expanded to allow a timely appeal.

Within Unit 8 is the Chapter of Public Safety, commonly known as COPS,3 which includes certain Commonwealth job titles in Department of Correction (DOC) facilities, including Correctional Program Officers (CPOs). For at least the last six years, the DOC had held quarterly Communicable Disease Committee (CDC) meetings with representatives from the various unions representing correction officers, CPOs, and other correctional employees.

Department of Correction, 19 MCSR 281 (2006) Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the appeal of the Appellant, Andrew Stacy, is hereby dismissed. Civil Service Commission /s/ Paul M. Stein Paul M. Stein Commissioner By vote of the Civil Service Commission (Bowman, Chairman; Ittleman, Camuso, Stein, and Tivnan, Commissioners) on March 3, 2016.

Pavone is presently employed as a Correction Officer I (CO I) with the Department of Correction (DOC). (Testimony of Ms. Pavone) 2. Ms. Pavone sat for the 2012 CO II promotional exam, completed all components, received a passing score and was placed on the eligible list on or about November 15, 2013. Exhibit A. 3.

Department of Correction, 34 MCSR 60 (2021); Brunelle v. Massachusetts Dept of Transp., 33 MCSR 370 (2020); Hartnett v. Department of Revenue, 30 MCSR 398 (2017); Baran v. Department of Conservation & Recreation, 18 MCSR 355 (2005). Given that the Appellants appointment as a Resident Engineer was only temporary, his responsibilities during that period cannot rightfully be considered a part of his regular, permanently assigned work.

Department of Correction, 27 MCSR 471 (2014), DOC bypassed a thirty-eight (38)-year-old candidate primarily because he was charged with soliciting a prostitute as a seventeen (17)-year-old high school student. DOC, when making its hiring decision, did not know that Mr. Teixeira was a junior in high school when the crime was committed or the circumstances surrounding the underlying event.

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.

The parties are in agreement that inmates participating in Work Release Programs or Probation Programs of the Norfolk County Sheriff's Office, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections, and/or Norfolk County District Court, may perform services in County Buildings in the nature of painting, general cleanup and snow shoveling at the discretion of the Employer, provided however, that said person shall be required to be supervised by