"In sum, this case is a classic example of an appointing authority exercising its lawful discretion and choosing from among a group of candidates on the basis of legitimate and relevant factors. The Commission cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Appointing Authority in such a case.
For all of the above stated reasons, it is found that the Respondent has established by a preponderance of the reliable and credible evidence in the record that it had just cause to bypass Appellant for the position of Permanent Reserve Police Officer.
Therefore, this appeal on Docket No. G1-05-150 is dismissed."
"Further, DOC, according to their Motion for Reconsideration, appears to have misconstrued the Commission’s reference to other Commission decisions involving the appointment of police
officers. Nothing in the Commission decision suggests that the vetting process for correction officer applicants should be less vigorous than that used to screen police officer candidates in the Commonwealth.
DOC has failed to identify a clerical or mechanical error in the decision or a significant factor that the Commission or the presiding officer may have overlooked in deciding the case.
Therefore, DOC’s Motion for Reconsideration filed under Docket No. G1-08-53 is herebydenied."
"Based upon a preponderance of the credible and reliable evidence in the record, the Appointing Authority has established there was reasonable justification to bypass the Appellant for original appointment as a police officer. Wherefore, for all of the above, the Appellant’s appeal is dismissed."
"In viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Appellant, he would still not entitled to the relief being sought for the following reasons. First, there is no evidence, nor is it even alleged, that HRD violated any civil service law or rule or basic merit principles. (G.L. c. 31, § 2(b)).
Second, even if the Appellant assumed that he did not need to take the August 2008 PAT as part of the two-part examination, he never sought to verify this assumption and/or notify HRD that he would not be attending the PAT for which he was registered to take. At best, his own faulty assumptions and his failure to follow HRD procedures resulted in his failure of the 2008 examination. HRD properly notified the Appellant that he had failed the examination (and thus his name would not appear on eligible list created from that exam). The Appellant can not show that these events occurred through no fault of his own...
...For all of the above reasons, HRD’s Motion to Dismiss is allowed and the Appellant’s appeal under Docket No. E-09-49 is hereby dismissed."