From the opinion, released today:
The parties have submitted proposed questions, which we rephrase for clarity as follows:
1. a. Whether a Governor may remove a chief medical examiner from office “for cause,” under G.L. c. 30, § 9, in the absence of proof of misfeasance, malfeasance, or wilful neglect of duty?
b. Whether the proper standard by which a reviewing court evaluates a Governor’s decision to remove a chief medical examiner from office “for cause” is whether some evidence in the record before the Governor supported his decision, that is, whether the decision was not arbitrary or capricious?
c. Whether that standard has been met in the circumstances of this case?
2. Assuming that the January 21, 2005, letter of agreement, signed by the plaintiff and the (then current) Secretary, constitutes an employment contract, are the terms of that contract enforceable in the circumstances of this case?
We answer all parts of question one in the affirmative and question two in the negative. We now explain why, first deciding the Commonwealth’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, because resolution of that motion in the Commonwealth’s favor will have a substantial effect on the motion to dismiss, which will also be resolved in the Commonwealth’s favor.
