Town of Brookline, 20 MCSR 24 (2007) (poor interview performance can stand alone as the sole basis for bypass where there is no evidence of any inappropriate motivations on the part of the Appointing Authority). 12 As referenced above, the Town chose to conduct interviews of the respective candidates. The authority to interview candidates is inherent in G.L. c. 31 25. Flynn v. Civ. Serv. Commn, 15 Mass. App. Ct. 206, 208 (1983).

Town of Brookline, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 120, 125 (2001). Here, the Respondent has sustained its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there was just cause for laying off the Appellant for lack of funds. The evidence presented and the testimony of Mr. Distaso clearly showed that the Respondents financial condition had significantly deteriorated from FY 05 to FY 07.

Should the Appellant seek to revoke this dismissal at that time, the Commission will weigh MCADs decision appropriately while conducting further proceedings on the Appellants just-cause appeal, guided in part by the Supreme Judicial Courts framework outlined in Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021).

Should the Appellant seek to revoke this dismissal at that time, the Commission will weigh MCADs decision appropriately while conducting further proceedings on the Appellants just-cause appeal, guided in part by the Supreme Judicial Courts framework outlined in Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021).

Should the Appellant seek to revoke this dismissal at that time, the Commission will weigh MCADs decision appropriately while conducting further proceedings on the Appellants just-cause appeal, guided in part by the Supreme Judicial Courts framework outlined in Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021).

Should the Appellant seek to revoke this dismissal at that time, the Commission will weigh MCADs decision appropriately while conducting further proceedings on the Appellants just-cause appeal, guided in part by the Supreme Judicial Courts framework outlined in Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021).

See 12 also Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021) (analyzing broad scope of the Commissions jurisdiction to enforce basic merit principles under civil service law). Public safety officers are vested with considerable power and discretion and must be held to a high standard of conduct. See, e.g., Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn., 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 801 (2004), citing City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App.

See also Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021)(analyzing broad scope of the Commissions jurisdiction to enforce basic merit principles under civil service law). That said, [i]t is not for the Commission to assume the role of super appointing agency, and to revise those employment determinations with which the Commission may disagree. Town of Burlington v. McCarthy, 60 Mass. App.

(emphasis added) See also Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021) (analyzing broad scope of the Commissions jurisdiction to enforce basic merit principles under civil service law).

Id; see also Town of Brookline v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278 (2021) (analyzing broad scope of the Commissions jurisdiction to enforce basic merit principles under civil service law). Yet, even if the appointing authority did not meet the burden of proof for bypass on every reason given, its discretion must 13 be upheld if any reason is sufficient, standing alone, to justify the bypass. See Porter v.