After two more days of hearing on these motions, the judge denied the motions and deferred ruling on the 14 claim. As the first issue on appeal, the employee asserts that the judge erred in denying his Motion to Vacate the decision. He contends that he is entitled to a new hearing before a different judge because the judge failed to reveal that when he had been a selectman, he had taken positions adverse to the predecessor corporation to this employer. The employee s brief contains general recitations from the Code of Judicial Conduct, but cites no authority specifically supporting the argument advanced. The employee s bare assertion lacks merit in law or in logic.
Disclosure requirements exist to assure an impartial judgment.
They are not intended to provide litigants with a means of obtaining a judge of their choice or a second, more favorable, decision. 22 Mass. App. Merely having met a litigant, knowing the litigant's name because of the litigant's public posture, . . To mandate recusal, there must be extra-judicial knowledge of facts in dispute in the case being heard, or a relationship with the litigant or witnesses, that causes the administrative judge to be biased or prejudiced for or against a party . The mere fact that the judge served as a selectman in a community where the predecessor corporation to this employer had a factory is not itself a reason to vacate the decision.