Pittsfield School Officials Refer PHS Report to State Records Supervisor
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The state now controls what can and can't be released on the Pittsfield High School investigation.
On Wednesday, the School Committee voted to refer the investigative report to Manza Arthur, supervisor of records with the secretary of state's office, and ask her to return a proper redacted report to release to the public.
The Pittsfield Public Schools have been ordered to release non-exempt parts of Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas' investigation into alleged staff wrongdoing by May 8 after community advocate Ciara Batory filed a public records request.
"Although people will say this isn't true, it is not the case that the School Committee is trying to stop anybody from knowing whether it's safe to have their kids go to school, but there is a concern about just how far that assurance has to go," Chair William Cameron said during Wednesday's meeting.
"And we'd like to be in well, in fact, we will act in accordance with the law as it's ultimately determined to be, but I don't believe that the letter we got is a satisfactory basis for our proceeding."
The School Department initially denied Batory's public records request on April 1, and following an appeal to the secretary of the commonwealth's Public Records Division, Arthur ruled on April 24 that the district failed to justify withholding the report in full and ordered that any non-exempt portions of the report be provided.
"That is not a suggestion. That is not an option. You are legally required to release the report. Yet the families affected and this entire community are still being denied the truth they deserve. Let me be very clear: withholding that report, after a direct order from the state, is not just unethical, it is unlawful. Every day you delay, every excuse you give, further destroys the public's trust in this school system," Batory said during open microphone.
"It does something else: it discredits the many teachers and staff who work hard every day to support and protect their students who care deeply, but are too afraid to speak out for fear of retaliation. Your silence sends a message that doing the right thing in this district comes at a cost. That protecting the system is more important than protecting the people in it."
She added that what happened at Pittsfield High is not just a single incident, and that "It is about whether the people in charge believe students and families deserve honesty or whether damage control comes first."
The item was scheduled to be discussed during executive session, using the Open Meeting Law's exemption "To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the public body and the chair so declares."
During public comment, The Berkshire Eagle's Greg Sukiennik pointed to the OML's guidance on the exemption used to justify the private session. It stipulates that:
"Discussions relating to potential litigation are not covered by this exemption unless that litigation is clearly and imminently threatened or otherwise demonstrably likely. That a person is represented by counsel and supports a position adverse to the public body's does not by itself mean that litigation is imminently threatened or likely. Nor does the fact that a newspaper reports a party has threatened to sue necessarily mean imminent litigation."
Mayor Peter Marchetti requested that the item not be taken in executive session, saying, "I have the executive session laws in front of me and I don't see — I went looking to see if there was another option to pick. I don't see one, so I would choose not to go into executive session to discuss something that I'm not sure is a valid executive session discussion."
Cameron said the district has had enough "synthetic controversies" and doesn't see a point in generating another one. He reported that the district received three of reports from Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas, and another two were expected the next day.
Committee member William Garrity was surprised that the secretary didn't call for an in camera review, in which documents are reviewed in private to determine if the revelation of documents in open court will be allowed.
"I feel we should explore that option with the secretary of state's office because it would give a neutral third-party opinion on what we can and cannot release in this report," he said.
"I think there is a balancing act."
Garrity said in a similar investigation that if he knew his name would be printed in the press, he would be hesitant about being interviewed out of fear of retaliation.
"And I think we need to understand that. I think some of the people who may have been interviewed don't want to be retaliated against for providing information," he said.
"Whether, for many reasons I won't get into, but I think that's something we need to figure out."
He pointed out that they will also have the executive summary, which will "hopefully avoid a lot of these problems" and be informative for the public.
Cameron agreed, adding "In order to make a fair determination of whether these should or shouldn't be public records in whole or in part, I think whoever is making the judgement would need to see what the records actually are." He reported that the district is already on notice that "we would probably be sued by one of the parties involved here"
"We have received notice from three people who came forward of their own volition as part of the investigation against whom nothing was charged, who are insisting that what they had to say be redacted and taken out of the reports because they fear retaliation," he said.
Tags: investigation, PHS, public records,
