School committee votes to ask counsel for an executive summary after BRG investigation; legal privacy concerns cited
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After extended public debate, the Pittsfield School Committee asked legal counsel to prepare an executive-summary-style public statement about outside BRG investigations, following counsel's advice that full reports may violate privacy statutes and harm witnesses.
The Pittsfield School Committee voted to ask its legal counsel to draft a public executive summary describing the process and conclusions from outside investigations conducted by Bulkley, Richardson & Gelinas (BRG), after heated debate about whether the committee should release BRG's full reports.
Why it mattered: The committee received public pressure to release the BRG reports in full. Committee members and counsel raised legal and prudential objections, saying full release could violate privacy statutes and expose witnesses to harassment.
What the committee decided: Mayor Marchetti moved — and the committee approved — a motion directing legal counsel to develop an executive-summary-style description of the investigation process and conclusions, if possible, without disclosing legally protected information. The motion passed by voice vote in open session.
Legal rationale discussed at length: A committee member explained that state public-records law contains privacy protections that can bar disclosure. The speaker summarized counsel's reading that M.G.L. c. 4, §7(26) (the public-records statute) and M.G.L. c. 214, §1B (privacy protections) could make release of the BRG reports unlawful or expose third parties to "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The member said BRG identified interviewees by position and sometimes by name; even redactions might not prevent identification in context.
Concerns cited by speakers: Committee members who opposed full release said publication could (1) harm people named in the reports, especially if allegations were unsubstantiated; (2) expose third‑party interviewees to online harassment; and (3) chill future investigations if people fear public exposure.
Requests for more public information: Other committee members pressed for more transparency, proposing an executive summary or a clear statement of process, chronology, and the committee's conclusions. "The public is owed something," said one member who co-sponsored the motion to seek a written summary from counsel.
Next steps: Legal counsel will draft the proposed document; the committee requested that the draft describe the investigative process and include conclusions where legally permissible. The transcript records committee members agreed to rely on the district's retained counsel (DuBray law firm) to advise on what can be released.