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).

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.

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 v. Alston, 487 Mass. 278, 292-93 (2021) (quoting Doherty v. Civil Serv. Commn, 486 Mass. 487, 493 (2020)). The commissions review of disciplinary decisions is required to focus on the fundamental purposes of the civil service systemto guard against political considerations, favoritism, and bias in governmental employment decisions . . . and to protect efficient public employees from political control. Boston Police Dept v.

Heavey, Houlihan, Kraft & Cardinal 229 Harvard Street Brookline, MA 02446 (617) 277-3477 Respondents Attorney: Mark E. Rumley, Esq. City of Medford Law Department 85 George Hassett Drive Medford, MA 02155 (781) 393-2470 Commissioner: John E.

Heavey, Houlihan, Kraft & Cardinal 229 Harvard Street Brookline, MA 02446 (617) 738-3477 Respondents Representatives: John M. Carey, Esq. Hollender & Carey, L.L.P. 44 School Street, Suite 415 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 227-2566 Michele M. Heffernan, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Human Resources Division One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-3555 x29779 Commissioner: John J. Guerin, Jr.

WHEREAS, the City endeavors to create a reliable, sustainable, accessible bicycle transportation system and believes a robust bicycling culture is related to the long-term health and economic success of its residents and businesses; WHEREAS, on or about August 15, 2016, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) an independent public body of the Commonwealth, on behalf of the City of Boston, the City of Cambridge, the City of Somerville, and the Town

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 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). ANALYSIS DOC failed to establish reasonable justification to bypass Mr. Pierrelouis in that the two reasons for bypassing him were made without a reasonably thorough review and were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Mr.