Fax Number 135 Berkshire Street, Cambridge, MA 02141 6. Employee Organization (if any): AFSCME 8. Council 93 7. Representative to contact 9. Telephone Number Robert Van Campen, Esq. 617-367-6026 Address (street and No., city/town, state, and ZIP code) 8 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 10. Fax Number 02108 11. This charge fs filed against (check one) 12.

Antonio Ayala Records Unit Cambridge Police Department 125 Sixth Street Cambridge, MA 02142 September 27, 2021 SPR21/2392 Dear Lt. Ayala: I have received the petition of Scott Ferguson appealing the response of the Cambridge Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 24, 2021, Mr. Ferguson requested a certain call to the Department on July 8, 2020.

Antonio Ayala Records Unit Cambridge Police Department 125 Sixth Street Cambridge, MA 02142 October 19, 2021 SPR21/2392 Dear Lt. Ayala: I have received the petition of Scott Ferguson appealing the response of the Cambridge Police Department (Department) to a request for public records. G. L. c. 66, 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On May 24, 2021, Mr. Ferguson requested a certain call to the Department on 7/8/20.

E.g., City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, 682 N.E.2d 923, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102, 687 N.E.2d 642 (1997) (Commission may not substitute its judgment for a valid exercise of appointing authority discretion, but the Civil Service Law gives the Commission some scope to evaluate the legal basis of the appointing authoritys action, even if based on a rational ground.).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997) (emphasis added) However, the governing statute, G.L.c.31,2(b), gives the Commissions de novo review broad scope to evaluate the legal basis of the appointing authority's action and it is not necessary for the Commission to find that the appointing authority acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Id.

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.

City of Cambridge v. Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304-305, 682 N.E.2d 923, 926 (1997). Ifa bypass decision shows overtones of political control or objectives unrelated to merit standards or neutrally applied public policy, then the occasion is appropriate for intervention by the [Civil Service] commission or DALA. 43 Mass. App. Ct. at 304, 682 N.E.2d at 926.

Ct. 914 92004) quoting City of Cambridge, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304-305 (1997). It is not for the Commission to assume the role of super-appointing agency, and to revise those employment determinations with which the Commission may disagree. Burlington, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 914 (2004).

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303 (1997). Justified 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. Jd; at 304.

Civil Service Commn 78 Mass.App.Ct. 182, 190-91 (2010); City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997) (Commission must not substitute its judgment for a valid exercise of appointing authority discretion, but civil service law gives the Commission some scope to evaluate the legal basis of the appointing authoritys action, even if based on a rational ground.) See also Town of Reading v.

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); Mclsaac 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).