BY DAN VALENTI

Pittsfield politics’ newest episode in The Twilight Zone!

Our Opinion: “Public still deserves full report of PHS investigation, not just ‘executive summaries'”
The Berkshire Eagle, Editorial, May 17, 2025

“In large part, the information we were able to gather was primarily second and third hand accounts or rumors that we were not able to substantiate,” the summary says.

Following an investigation of misconduct allegations against multiple Pittsfield High School staff members, the Pittsfield School Committee has released a series of “executive summaries.” With the release of these summaries showcasing only some of the probe’s findings, the School Committee might believe it has fulfilled the pledge of maximum transparency that Chairman William Cameron promised when he said in December that “There’s no intent here to cover anything up. … So whatever we are legally able to release, we will release.”

We disagree, and going back on that promise is bound to raise some justifiable concerns in a community that has lost trust in the city’s school system amid a chaotic stream of controversies emanating from PHS in recent months. That broken trust is, of course, one of the main reasons why this extraordinary investigation was needed in the first place.

We understand the argument, oft-cited by the School Committee chairman, that the district wants to avoid stoking unfounded rumors and unnecessary invasions of privacy. As we have consistently argued, though, that can be reasonably balanced with Pittsfield taxpayers’ right to see the report they funded by releasing a carefully but minimally redacted version of the report itself. Conversely, offering up only curated summaries of this consequential report’s findings suggests the district is willing to compromise its constituents’ right to know about a matter of great public import — especially to anyone who sends their children to this school.

The decision rejects the Pittsfield School Committee’s assertion that the report, which shares the results of an investigation kicked off by alleged misconduct by staff members at Pittsfield High School, was exempt from the state public records law.

The state Division of Public Records seemed to agree with that sentiment earlier this month. After a Pittsfield resident’s public records request for the PHS report was denied by the district, she appealed to the state. In the resultant ruling, the state’s supervisor of records wrote that the district “had not met its burden” in proving why the report should be exempt from the state public records law and therefore should release a redacted version of the report.

While the School Committee has sought clarity from the state Division of Public Records, it’s also pushed back on the ruling. In a letter to both the state and the Pittsfield resident who made the records request, the district said even a redacted version would not protect the privacy of the report’s subjects and witnesses and would have a chilling effect on future investigations.

The most chilling effect we could imagine for the district is the perception of the sort of cover-up that the School Committee chairman specifically pledged to avoid back in December. Preventing that perception demands erring on the side of transparency — exactly what was called for in the Division of Public Records’ ruling. The last thing the district should want from an investigation meant to address serious community concerns is for the release format of its findings to raise more questions. Yet we fear that outcome is welcomed by these cautious curations dubbed “executive summaries.”

What evidentiary standard was applied, and by whom, when a summary states there was “no conclusive evidence” of some alleged behavior by a PHS administrator? We are familiar with evidentiary standards that range from the minimal (reasonable suspicion) to the very high criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt along with several between these extremes. We are unfamiliar with the standard of “conclusive evidence,” although it sounds like something close to, if not equal to, beyond a reasonable doubt. While we do not quarrel with the appropriateness of requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict someone of a crime, we also believe that if the evidence of wrongdoing is more likely than not (the typical civil law standard) such evidence demands that such a conclusion be articulated.

Further, why did the investigation seem to consistently struggle with contacting and interviewing sources who might have had firsthand knowledge regarding some of the allegations, as noted throughout the executive summaries, and what does this mean for the conclusiveness of the findings reported in the summaries?

The public might not be able to ever get all the answers about this controversial morass, but the people of Pittsfield deserve as many answers as they can possibly get. That would be accomplished if the district would simply follow through on the reasonable order from the state Division of Public Records to release a minimally redacted version of the full report. Such a release would also provide Pittsfield residents with another perspective of public interest: What did the district and the law firm it contracted with see fit to include in or leave out of the executive summaries?

As we’ve argued before, it’s fair enough for the district to seek clarity with the state on the best way to make redactions to the report while balancing legitimate privacy and liability concerns with state records law’s prioritization of the public’s right to know. But the district also should be keen to avoid the perception that it’s stalling on following the Division of Public Records’ order and trying to sweep under the rug any discrepancies or gaps between the full report and the executive summaries.

That, too, could have a chilling effect.