City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, 682 N.E.2d 923, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102, 687 N.E.2d 642 (1997). See also City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728, 792 N.E.2d 711, rev.den., 440 Mass. 1108, 799 N.E.2d 594 (2003); Police Dept of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 411, 721 N.E.2d 928, rev.den., 726 N.E.2d 417 (2000); McIsaac v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303 (1997). In making this determination, the CSC is not limited to ~ reviewing only the evidence that was before the appointing authority, City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass, App. Ct. 726, 727 (2003). The CSC is authorized to hear[] evidence and find facts anew. Id.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300,304 (1997). See Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983); McIsaac v. Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Police Department of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 411 (2000); City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003).

L. . 31, 59 (the twenty-five-year preference) which ao) , provides for two points to be added to the raw score of any officer with over twenty-five Years: or > 3 Human Resources Division and City of Cambridge experience as a regular police officer. As of the date of the exam, DeFrancesco had been an officer with the Cambridge Police Department for twenty-four years and five months.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). Reasonable justification is defined as adequate reasons supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First District Court of East Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928) and Commissioners of Civil Service v. Municipal William Rosa, Jr.

City of Cambridge y. Chril Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ch 300, 304-305 (1997). This Courts role is to review the commissi on's decision to determine if it violates any: of the Standards set forth in G. L. v. 30A, M4), and cases vonstrning those standards, 7 Fown mun, 1. 2010810: 33AMY*"AGO Adlaw Division I7No, 295 QueeuiP, reoleasuare of Plymouth v. Civil Service Commission, 426 Mass, 1, 5 (1997).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 682 N.E.2d 923, 925 (1997). In this context, justification means done upon adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rules of law. 682 N.E.2d at 926, quoting Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist.

City of Cambridge, 27 Mass. Civil Serv. Rptr. 383, 385 (2014); Olisky v. Town of E. Longmeadow, 27 MCSR 277, 280 (2014) (Integrity and honesty are at the core of a [police] officer's job and responsibilities).

All of his prior employers, personal references and supervisors, including Allen Platt- Youth Center Director for the City of Cambridge who has known the Appellant for 12 years. Selwin Chambers III Director of Youth Development and Family Services for the Boston Centers for Youth & Families, who has known the Appellant for 5 years. Paul Ryder- Director of Recreation for The City of Cambridge, who has known the Appellant for 6 years.

He may 3 The commission regularly receives proposed decisions from parties, which rely on the oft-cited precedent for such alleged wide discretion and purportedly limited commission oversight found in City of Cambridge, 43 Mass.App.Ct. at 304-05, quoting from Callanan v. Personnel Admr, 400 Mass. 597, 601 (1987).