City of Beverly v Civil Service Commission, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 188 (2010), citing City of Cambridge, supra at p. 305. After a careful review of all of the testimonial and documentary evidence in this case, | have concluded that the Appointing Authority has met its burden of proving that its reasons for the bypass of the Appellant were more probably than not sound and sufficient.

Cr. 182, See City of Beverly , 188 (2010). In his decision, the Hearing Commissioner, identified substantial evidence presented at the hearing before him to support his conclusion that the BPD's decision was nat based upon a preponderance of the evidence, [1 is also concerning that eighty-seven percent of the candidates between the Fall of 2005 and the Summer of 2007, who were referred from Dr. Scott to Dr. Reade, were also found unfit, by Dr.

City of Beverly v Civil Service Commission, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 188 (2010), citing City of Cambridge, supra at p. 305. After a careful review of all of the testimonial and documentary evidence in this case, | have concluded that the Appointing Authority has met its burden of proving that its reasons for the bypass of the Appellant were more probably than not sound and sufficient.

Standard of Review A police departments hiring decision need only be supported by reasonable justification, City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 188 (2010); citing Brackett v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass 233, 241 (2006). When an applicant appeals the police departments decision to the Commission, the police department must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it had reasonable justification.

City of Beverly v. Civil Serv. Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 187 (2010) (quoting City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728 (2003), rev. den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003)). 13 The [C]ommissions task, however, is not to be accomplished on a wholly blank slate. Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006).

Civil Service Comm'n, 447 Mass. 233, 241 (2006), citing G.L. c. 31, 2(b); City of Beverly v. Civil Service Comm'n, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 187 (2010). See also Mayor of Revere v. Civil Service Commn, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 315, 321 (1991) (appointing authority must establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that the reasons assigned to justify the bypass were more probably than not sound and sufficient); Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist.

Acknowledgment is made of a recent decision City of Beverly (cited below) by the Appeals Court. The City of Beverly decision addressed the standard of review employed by the commission for cases involving the bypass for hiring a candidate for a civil service police officer position. The Courts decision also addressed the issues of burden of proof and proper exercise of judgment incumbent upon the appointing authority in these hiring matters.

City of Beverly v Civil Service Commission, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 188 (2010), citing City of Cambridge, supra at p. 305. After a careful review of all of the testimonial and documentary evidence in this case, I have concluded that the Appointing Authority has met its burden of proving that Corey Donahue GI1-12-30 CS-12-165 its reasons for the bypass of the Appellant were more probably than not sound and sufficient.

DISCUSSION Standard of Review: A court reviewing a decision made by:the cominission is boutid to accept the findings of fact of the commission s bearing officer if supported by substantial evidence, City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commission, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 188 (2010).

The Commissions role, while important, is relatively narrow in scope: reviewing the legitimacy and reasonableness of the appointing authoritys actions (City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189, 190-191 (2010) citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 824-826 (2006) and ensuring that the appointing authority conducted an impartial and reasonably thorough review of the applicant. Beverly.