A magistrate at the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) recommended upholding the plaintiffs NL five-day suspension, and the defendant Civil Service Commission (Commission) adopted that recommendation. The plaintiff has appealed the matter to this court pursuant to G. L. c. 30A 14 and seeks judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(c). After hearing, and for the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

Division of Administrative Law Appeals, 101 Mass. App. Ct. 806 (2024).

Division of Administrative Law Appeal and Bureau of Special Education Appeals, the Suffolk Superior Court, in its Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendants Motion to Dismiss, stated: [The requester] has a right to seek public records from his government, provided he does so in a reasonable manner.

On January 2, 2013, the City filed a Motion for Transfer to the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (Transfer Motion). The Transfer Motion was denied on January 7, 2013. A full hearing was held on January 24, 2013 at the Commission. The hearing was digitally recorded. Copies of the recording were sent to the parties.

I held a hearing on the appeal over the course of four days. 1 began the hearing on 2 July 16, 2008 at the offices of the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) in Boston. made three tapes of that days hearing. I held three subsequent days of hearing, August 7 and 8, 2008 and October 16, 2008, at the Greenfield Police Department headquarters in Greenfield. These hearings were transcribed by a court reporter.

It failed to directly tell the Civil Service Commission or the Division of Administrative Law Appeals 9DALA) that it was not turning over docurnents to Mr. Seong that it had been ordered to turn over; instead, it sent him a letter. It so delayed telling Mr. Seong that it was not turning over documents to him that it precluded him from objecting before the hearing.

The appeal was heard by a magistrate at the Division of Administrative Law Appeals. The Commission adopted the findings and conclusions of the magistrate and dismissed the Appellants appeal.

(Testimony of Davis) 7 I take Administrative Notice that the Appellant appealed the Weymouth Retirement Boards denial of her application for Accidental and/or Disability Retirement to the state Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) and that a Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) Magistrate denied her appeal on February 27, 2014 (Docket No. CR-12-690). I have no additional information indicating that Ms.

(Stipulated Fact) ' A full hearing was initially scheduled for December 4, 2008 at the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA). This was converted to a motion hearing after the Appellant filed a Motion for Summary Decision. The DALA magistrate recommended that the Appellants Motion be denied and the matter scheduled for a full evidentiary hearing.

By decision of the Division of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA) dated November 8, 1999, (Santiago v. Methuen Retirement Board, Docket No. CR-971798) the Appellant was denied accidental disability retirement benefits. (Exhibit 23) 7. In 1998, the Appellant was elected to the office of State Representative. He was reelected in 2000.