Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006) and cases cited. The Commissions role is to determine "whether the appointing authority has sustained its burden of proving that there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority." City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997). See also Police Dept of Boston v.

Gans Attorney At Law 290 Shore Street Falmouth, MA 02540 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Dear Attorney Gans: This office received a complaint from Michael McCarthy on December 12, 2024, alleging that the Falmouth Building Needs Task Force (the Task Force), violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 18-25. 1 The complaint was originally filed with the Task Force on November 11, and you responded on behalf of the Falmouth School Committee and the Task

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The issue for the Commission is "not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the Appointing Authority made its decision." Watertown v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The issue for the Commission is "not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the Appointing Authority made its decision." Watertown v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). Donavan Bloomfield CS-10-11 The basis of my conclusion rests with my finding that the testimony of all the Appointing Authority witnesses to be extremely credible. The Appellant himself had informed the DOC that Officers Smith, Fernandez, and Zieroff had witnessed the incident between himself and Sergeant Montenero.

Unless the Commissions findings of fact differ significantly from those reported by the appointing authority or interpret the relevant law in a substantially different way, the commission is not free to substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority, and cannot modify a penalty on the basis of essentially similar fact finding without an adequate explanation E.g., Town of Falmouth v. Civ. Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006).

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The issue for the Commission is "not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the Appointing Authority made its decision." Watertown v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The basis of my conclusion rests with my finding that the testimony of both Brad Cowen and Steven Dehestani was extremely credible. In Connor v. Connor, 77 A.2d 697 (Pa. 1951), the Pennsylvania Appeals Court held that the "opportunity to observe demeanor and appearance of witnesses in many instances becomes the very touchstone of credibility."

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). 8 The issue for the Commission is "not whether it would have acted as the appointing authority had acted, but whether, on the facts found by the commission, there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the appointing authority in the circumstances found by the commission to have existed when the Appointing Authority made its decision." Watertown v.

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 800 (2004). The Commission does not possess the authority to substitute its judgment about a valid exercise of discretion based on merit or policy considerations by an appointing authority. Id. 8 The Respondent has sustained its burden of proving that there was reasonable justification for the action taken by the Appointing Authority.