City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997). However, appointing authorities are vested with a degree of discretion in selecting public employees of skill and integrity.

City of Cambridge, 28 MCSR 514 (2015); Collins v. Town of Billerica, 28 MCSR 171 (2015); Stockinger v. City of Quincy, 24 MCSR 416, 422 (2011); Lusignan v. City of Holyoke G & E Dept, 22 MCSR 137 (2009); Harrop v. Fall River School Comm., 22 MCSR 1 (2009) and cases cited. Analysis Brockton correctly asserts that the DPW is a single departmental unit for purposes of civil service law and rules.

City of Cambridge, 28 MCSR 514 (2015); Collins v. Town of Billerica, 28 MCSR 171 (2015); Stockinger v. City of Quincy, 24 MCSR 416, 422 (2011); Lusignan v. City of Holyoke G & E Dept, 22 MCSR 137 (2009); Harrop v. Fall River School Comm., 22 MCSR 1 (2009) and cases cited. Analysis Brockton correctly asserts that the DPW is a single departmental unit for purposes of civil service law and rules.

Municipal Ct. of Boston, 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971); see also City of Cambridge, 43 Mass.App.Ct. at 304; Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct., 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928). GL. c. 31, 2(b) requires that bypass cases be determined by a preponderance of the credible evidence in the record.

Municipal Ct. of Boston, 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971); see also City of Cambridge, 43 Mass.App.Ct. at 304; Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct. 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928). G.L. c. 31, 2(b) requires that bypass cases be determined by a preponderance of the evidence.

Municipal Ct., 359 Mass. 211, 214 (1971); City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 304, rev.den., 426 Mass. 1102 (1997); Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First Dist. Ct., 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928) It is the purview of the hearing officer to determine the credibility of the testimony presented through the witnesses who appear before the Commission. See, e.g., Leominster v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997); Watertown vy. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983); Mclsaac v, Civil Service Commission, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 473, 477 (1995). An action is justified when it is done upon adequate reasons sufficiently reported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by . Earl Fanion CS-12-689 D1-12-271 common sense and by correct rules of law.

City of Cambridge v, Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303 (1997). The question before 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.

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); MclIsaac 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).

(Appellants Exhibit 1, Respondents Exhibit C) 5 CONCLUSION A Motion for Summary Decision is properly allowed where there is no genuine issue of fact relating to all or part of a claim or defense and he is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h), City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997).