City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 300, 303-305, rev.den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997) (emphasis added) In light of the high standards to which police officers appropriately are held, appointing authorities are given significant latitude in screening candidates. City of Beverly v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 303-305, rev. den., 428 Mass. 1102 (1997).

See, e.g., 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.

See City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997) (When there are, in connection with personnel decisions, overtones of political control or objectives unrelated to merit standards or neutrally applied public policy, then the occasion is appropriate for intervention by the commission.). Unless and until the City complies with that duty, it has not impartially or lawfully adopted any reasons for bypassing Mr.

See generally, G.L.c.31,1 (basis merit principles means recruiting, selecting and advancing of employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge and skills, assuring fair treatment of all applicants and protecting employees from arbitrary and capricious actions); City of Cambridge v.

Ct. 300, 304 (1997), City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. An action is justified when it is done upon adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law. Jd, quoting Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First District Ct. of E. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928); Commissioners of Civil Service v.

City of Cambridge v. Civil Serv. Commn, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997); Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331, 334 (1983). Reasonable justification is established when such an action is done upon adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and correct rules of law. Commrs of Civil Serv. v. Mun.

See City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997); Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (1983) and City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003). It is clear from the credible testimony of O and the results reported from the investigations of DCF and Mr. Brophy that the highly inappropriate actions by O and M did indeed occur on Bus 22 during the afternoon of March 7, 2012.

City of Cambridge, 19 MCSR 299 (2006)(same). (Id.)

City of Cambridge v. Civil Service Commission, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 300, 304 (1997). An action is justified when it is done upon adequate reasons sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by an unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law. Jd., at 304, quoting Selectmen of Wakefield v. Judge of First District Ct. of E. Middlesex, 262 Mass. 477, 482 (1928); Commissioners of Civil Service v.