Wallack requested: [d]ocuments showing the names of sworn officers within the Cambridge Police Department who were terminated for misconduct, agreed to resign or retire to resolve misconduct accusations, or resigned or retired with a pending internal affairs investigation since January 1, 2010. The City provided a response on July 27, 2021. Unsatisfied with the Citys response, Mr.

The Union is the exclusive bargaining representative for certain radio technicians employed by the City in its Telecommunications Division of the Boston Police Department. 4. On September 18, 2012, the City transferred the lighting truck at issue from the Telecommunications Division to the Crime Scene Response Team. 5. After September 18, 2012, the Union no longer operated the lighting truck for the purposes of lighting crime scenes.

The Union is the exclusive bargaining representative for certain radio technicians employed by the City in its Telecommunications Division of the Boston Police Department. 4. On September 18, 2012, the City transferred the lighting truck at issue from the Telecommunications Division to the Crime Scene Response Team. 5. After September 18, 2012, the Union no longer operated the lighting truck for the purposes of lighting crime scenes.

This appeal involves whether the Appellant, while serving as a Boston police officer, filed meritless criminal charges against a superior officer and, if so, whether that and other misconduct justifies her termination from the Boston Police Department.

Boston Police Department, 28 MCSR 185 (April 3, 2015)(Docket No. D-14-298) 25. On September 15, 2014, Ms. James was placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into her failure to report for a hair drug test. (James v. Boston Police Department, 28 MCSR 185 (April 3, 2015)(Docket No.

.: G1-11-57 BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent Appellant: Paula Josephs, Pro se Respondent: Jane E. DePalma, Atty. Boston Police Department Office of the Legal Advisor One Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA Commissioner: 02120 Daniel M.

BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent G1-14-80 Appearance for Appellant: Joseph G. Donnellan, Esq. Rogal & Donnellan, P.C. 100 River Ridge Drive, Suite 203 Norwood, MA 02062 Appearance for Respondent: Peter Geraghty, Esq. Boston Police Department One Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Commissioner: Paul M. Stein1 DECISION Pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c. 31, 2(b), the Appellant, Christopher Dunn (Mr.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS KEKKEKEKREKEEKREREREKERERKEREKKEREKEKEEREEKREERREKEREEERE In the Matter of * * * * * CITY OF BOSTON and BOSTON POLICE DETECTIVES BENEVOLENT SOCIETY Case No.: MUP-08-5370 Date issued: November 21, 2011 * * Hearing Officer: Kathleen Goodberlet, Esq.

D-02-773 BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent Appellants Attorney: Stephen C. Pfaff, Esq. Merrick, Louison & Costello, LLP 67 Batterymarch Street Boston, MA. 02110 Respondents Attorney: Kerri E. Tierney, Esq. Boston Police Department Office of the Legal Advisor 1 Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA. 02120-2014 Commissioner: John E.

BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent Appellants Attorney: James W. Simpson, Atty. 7 Park Street, Suite 209 Attleboro, MA 02703 Respondents Attorney: Nicole I. Taub, Atty. Boston Police Department Office of the Legal Advisor One Schroeder Plaza Boston, MA 02120 Commissioner: Daniel M. Henderson!

Section 2, Rights/Privileges Nothing in this Agreement shall abridge, deprive or limit any covered employee of the Cambridge Police Department, or the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association per se, in the exercise of any rights, powers and liberties granted to them or any of them or to which they severally are or may be entitled under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States of America, or the ordinances or other legislative