on, shall be offered and made a part of the record in the proceeding, and no other factual information or evidence shall be considered"); 801 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.02(10)(f) (1998) ("[p]residing [o]fficer shall have the duty to conduct a fair hearing to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected . . .; and to reconvene the hearing with notice to the parties at any time prior to the decision being issued"); 801 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.02(10)(h)(2) (1998) ("[c]opies of any evidence [on which a decision is based] shall be provided to all other [p]arties"); 801 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.02(10)(h)(5) (1998) (agency may require any party "with appropriate notice to all other [p]arties, to submit additional evidence on any relevant matter" [emphasis added]); 801 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.03(6) (1999) (prohibiting ex parte communications). See also Rothmanv.Rent Control Bd. Of Cambridge, 37 Mass.App.Ct. 217, 223 (1994) (fundamental principle of fair hearing that "whatever actually plays a part in the decision should be known to the parties and subject to being controverted" [citation omitted]).

We think it was reasonable for the judge, in the interest of fairness, to decline to accept and consider those records as proof, if they were not made available to opposing counsel for examination. See Rothman v. Rent Control Bd. of Cambridge, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 217, 223 (1994), quoting from Schwartz, Administrative Law § 7.13, at 369 (2d ed. 1984) ("the general principle [is] that '[w]hatever actually plays a part in the decision should be known to the parties and subject to being controverted'"). See generally Lewis v. Lewis, 220 Mass. 364, 370-371 (1915) (in camera proceedings in common-law courts are disfavored, as contrary to the spirit of openness, impartiality, and equality upon which our system of justice depends).