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, 814-N.E.2d 735, 738 (2004).

Town of Falmouth, 20 MLC 1555 (1984), affid sub nom., Town of Falmouth v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (1997). If the evidence is insufficient to find an agreement or if the parties hold differing good faith interpretations of the language at issue, the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (Board) will conclude that no repudiation has occurred. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 18 MLC 1161, 1163 (1986).

Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006) and cases cited. As prescribed by G.L c. 31, 43, 2, the Appointing Authority bears the burden of proving just cause for the discipline imposed by a preponderance of the evidence.

See Town of Falmouth v. Civil Service Commission, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 796, 801 (2004); citing City of Cambridge, supra at 303. Likewise, an Appointing Authority is well within its rights to bypass an individual for fudging the truth as part of an application process for the position of police officer.

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 Adalgisa Ortiz 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). 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.

Unless the Commissions findings of fact differ significantly from those reported by the appointing 11 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.