See City of Beverly v. Civil Serv. Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189 (2010). In its review, the commission is to find the facts afresh, and in doing so, the commission is not limited to examining the evidence that was before the appointing authority. Id. at 187 (quoting City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev. den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003)). The commissions task, however, is not to be accomplished on a wholly blank slate.

See City of Beverly v. Civil Serv. Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189 (2010). In its review, the commission is to find the facts afresh, and in doing so, the commission is not limited to examining the evidence that was before the appointing authority. Id. at 187 (quoting City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev. den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003)). The commissions task, however, is not to be accomplished on a wholly blank slate.

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.

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189 190-191 (2010) citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 824-826 (2006). The Commission owes substantial deference to the appointing authoritys exercise of judgment in determining whether there was reasonable justification shown. Such deference is especially appropriate with respect to the hiring of police officers.

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commission, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 188 (2010), quoting from City of Cambridge, 43 Mass. App. Ct. at 305. The issue in the instant case is whether the city put forward a sufficient quantum of evidence to substantiate its legitimate concerns about the Appellants alleged misconduct. Id conclude that it has not.

See City of Beverly v. Civil Serv. Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189 (2010). In its review, the commission is to find the facts afresh, and in doing so, the commission is not limited to examining the evidence that was before the appointing authority. Id. at 187 (quoting City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev. den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003)). The commissions task, however, is not to be accomplished on a wholly blank slate.

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189, 190-191 (2010) citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 824-826 (2006) and ensuring that the appointing authority conducted an impartial and reasonably thorough review of the applicant. The Commission owes substantial deference to the appointing authoritys exercise of judgment in determining whether there was reasonable justification shown.

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189, 190-191 (2010) citing Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 824-826 (2006). The Commission owes substantial deference to the appointing authoritys exercise of judgment in determining whether there was reasonable justification shown. Beverly citing Cambridge at 305, and cases cited.

See City of Beverly v. Civil Serv. Commn, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 189 (2010) [Beverly]: In its review, the commission is to find the facts afresh, and in doing so, the commission is not limited to examining the evidence that was before the appointing authority. Id. at 187 (quoting City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev. den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003)).

City of Beverly v. Civil Service Commission, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 187 (2010). M.G.L. c. 31, s. 2(6) requires that bypass cases be determined by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence requires the Commission to determine whether, on the basis of the evidence before it, the Appointing Authority has established that the reason assigned for the bypass of an appellant were more probably than not sound and sufficient.