Hence, this matter was heard by the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA), who stands in as the hearing officer on this case. The DALA judge found just cause for the plaintiffs termination, and recommended affirmance of the DOCs decision to terminate. Plaintiffs appealed again to the CSC. The full commission (minus one member) deliberated the matter with the result of a split 2-2 vote. I start with the effect of this vote.

Pursuant to G.L. c. 7, 4H, and G.L. c. 31, 43, the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) assigned an Administrative Magistrate to conduct a full evidentiary hearing regarding this matter on behalf of the Civil Service Commission (Commission). DALAs Administrative Magistrate heard the case over the course of four days in March and April of 2023.

On October 4, 2007, an administrative magistrate from the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (the DALA magistrate) conducted a full hearing. After review of all the testimony and evidence, she made specific findings of facts and concluded that the City had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that just cause had existed to suspend Schiavone.

Clark filed an appeal of this decision with the Commission and the Commission assigned the appeal to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA). Hearings were held before Magistrate Joan Friedman Fink (Magistrate Fink) on July 30, 2008 and August 8, 2008. A twelve page recommended decision was issued on August 17, 2009, ruling in favor of the Department. On further appeal, the Commission affirmed Magistrate Finks decision. DISCUSSION ~ I.

Division of Administrative Law Appeals demonstrates quite clearly that reasonableness is a cornerstone of public information laws. Mrs. Mullaly is not acting reasonably in her fervent requests. Rather she is abusing the public records law to express her clear dissatisfaction with the tree warden and his work.

Bowen did not indicate on his completed Reclassification Appeal Form that he was requesting a hearing before the personnel administrator, On July 11, 2011, a full evidentiary hearing was held by an administrative magistrate at the office of the Division of Administrative Law Appeals. At the outsct of the hearing, Bowens counsel submitted a motion titled Motion to Remand to Personal[sic] Administrator for Hearing.

_[FN5 Schiavone timely challenged the decision and the matter went for a hearing before a magistrate from the division of administrative law appeals. The magistrate generally concluded that the city had just cause to discipline Schiavone, and that a suspension for a period of one year was fully warranted by the facts and circumstances of this case.

Division of Administrative Law Appeals, 103 Mass. App. Ct. 806, 807 (2024), which held that the public records law does not require public agencies simply to provide the requested records no matter the burden imposed, nor does it require public agencies to shunt aside their principal public functions to do so.

Division of Administrative Law Appeals Paul DeFarias, Appellant, No. CS-22-0233 (G1-22-065) Dated: October 6, 2022 v. City of Gloucester, Respondent. Appearance for Appellant: James E. Neyman, Esq. 76 Canal Street Boston, MA 02114 Appearance for Respondent: Suzanne P.

Division of Administrative Law Appeals Matthew Fraumeni, Appellant Y. Docket Nos. CS-12-182 (DALA), G-1-11-349 (Civil Service . Cambridge City Manager/Police Department, (Commission) Appointing Authority Dated JUL 16 2013 Appearance for Appellant: Joseph L. Suliman, Esq. - Law Office of Joseph L. Sulman 185 Devonshire Street, Suite 502, Boston, MA 02110 ; co fol es 7 a ~ ' f ; Appearance for Appointing Authority: Joshua R.