PITTSFIELD, Mass.—The state office of public records has denied a city councilor's request for the full Pittsfield High School Investigation report, which found allegations against administrative staff "unsupported." 

On June 12, Supervisor of Records Manza Arthur informed the district that Ward 1 Councilor Kenneth Warren's administrative appeal has been closed.  It was determined that the Pittsfield Public Schools met its burden to withhold public records. 

This is because the investigation's final report was found to be useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee. 

"Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed," Arthur wrote. 

On April 10, Warren requested a copy of the executed contract with Buckley Richardson & Gelinas, recommendations of the firm, the findings of the firm if they are different, the final report prepared by the firm, any invoices submitted pursuant to the contract, and any documentation representing payment for services rendered under this contract.

The Berkshire Eagle has reported that BRG billed the Pittsfield Public School District $154,502.47 for 592.3 hours of its services. 

The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal, where Arthur determined on May 15 that it was unclear which exemption of the Public Records Law the School cited to redact the records it provided in response to the request. 

She explained that the Public Records Law "strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records" and that public records are "broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption." 

In its May 9 response, the district cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records Law to support its withholding of the final report.  This exemption pertains to "personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 

The secretary of records explained "personnel files or information" is not explicitly defined in the legislature and judicial decisions advise that the term is "neither rigid, nor exact, and that the determination is case-specific." 

"The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has refined the analysis to be employed when considering the public record status of personnel records," she wrote. 

"The Court has held that personnel information that is "useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee" may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c)." 

It was further defined that records may be withheld as personal information when they include "employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular employee."  

This is how the district met its burden for not releasing the report. 

In its May 9 response, the district asserted that the report contains "extremely personal information regarding the persons mentioned within those records," that the publicly known allegations are "serious" and involve students and staff, and that they were conducted specifically to determine if personnel action should or should not be taken.

"Redactions to these particular documents would not be suitable as the entire document contains personnel information of a highly sensitive nature. Further, it is known who the staff members and some of the students are due to the intense publicity surrounding these cases and therefore redaction would not protect their interests," the district wrote on May 20. 

"It would also be possible in the community to ascertain the identities of the student and adult witnesses even with redaction. If personnel records such as these were to be released, it would have a severe chilling effect on witnesses coming forward to discuss allegations such as these and would violate the privacy rights of the employees involved. Further, the public would not obtain any additional useful information beyond what is already publicly known (i.e., the general nature of the allegations and whether the allegations were or were not sustained)." 

At the end of April, the School Committee voted to refer the un-redacted investigative report to Arthur and ask her to return a proper redacted report to release to the public.  This is also known as an in-camera review.  She found that the full report falls under the core category of personnel information useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee and falls under the cited exemption. 

Three administrators and two teachers, past and present, were investigated by Bulkley Richardson and Gelinas LLP at the request of the School Committee for a range of allegations that surfaced or re-surfaced at the end of 2024 after Dean of Students Lavante Wiggins was arrested and charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office for allegedly conspiring to traffic large quantities of cocaine in Western Massachusetts.

Executive summaries released in May found allegations of misconduct "unsupported." 

Last week, the School Committee accepted a personnel report that indicated PHS Vice Principal Allison Shepard, one of the subjects of investigation, will be exiting the district at the end of July.  Her salary was nearly $100,000 per year. 
 

• Most Read

• Most Comments

• All News

• Blogroll

• Photos