BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

ADD 1: THE PLANET has added Gary Munn’s legal response to the city’s charges, which he submitted on May 5. The document can be found in the presentation on Munn’s position. 

ADD 2: We received this from Danielle Munn on Wednesday afternoon. THE PLANET shares this as part of the “he says/she says,” “city says/Munns say” record.

I also want to note that Gary’s overtime gradually increased over the years as the PPD invested in training him towards digital forensics, we are guessing we’ll over $20K in training. Murders, Shootings, Bank Robberies started to demand more time of him and this started when Wynn & Tyer were in office. They approved all of this hybrid work and PPD took over the overtime for Gary because IT didn’t have the budget.

Why is IT investigating overtime from the PPD budget? Why does he get to overreach departments without first creating a new collaboration with all new players? 

CIO came in for a bit, demanded more money from the mayor because his salary wasn’t equivalent to the School’s Head of IT. When he didn’t get the salary, he left to go back to GD. Mike Taylor & Mayor Marchetti hire a new CIO from a man whom barely spoke English so it was a struggle to communicate but he is from a different cultural background so there were conflicts.

Jamie kept contacting Kevin (CIO) personally to help him bridge back over. The mayor and Kevin saw each other in a public place and chatted about their plan. Then….. 

Jamie Munn, Mike Taylor & Mayor Marchetti did what they do best, they ganged up on the guy and fired him. He received no training, no support, he was just thrown into  the office and expected to figure it out.

Also Shari Foucher, recently felt forced to retire early because of the abusive and toxic environment that CIO allowed with the IT dept. She made complaints against Jamie for sexual harassment and was brushed off. She said she filed a suit in Springfield last week. She also agreed to speak on Gary’s behalf to support his claims of this corruption.

ADD 3 Thursday morning–THE PLANET received the following from Danielle Munn. She raises an interesting point about Gary Munn’s overtime:

———- ooo ———-

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, WEDNESDAY JULY 2, 2025) — THE PLANET has more on The Strange and Spooky Case of Gary Munn, an IT specialist recently fired by the city after eight years on the job.

Munn worked a hybrid position, with his offices on the second floor of the Pittsfield Police Department but with his boss, chief information officer (CIO) Kevin Zawistowski, on city side

This case, though the city has portrayed it as cut-and-dry in its public comments, possesses a more labyrinthian aspect than Minotaur’s house on Crete. It involved accusations of illegal activity from both sides and allegations of vindictive activities by the IT department and the mayor. Throw in what a downtown business owner–who is also, incidentally or not, Munn’s wife–claims is the city’s attempt to put her out of business, and you have the recipe for political morass, with the certainly of lawsuits added as a garnish. Such dishes are never well done, nor are they rare in Bitchfield.

Today, THE PLANET will present the position of both sides. Analysis will come in our next column, which will, we think, be a week from today, if we come back at all

We will add that sources in the PPD almost uniformly expressed support for Munn, as well as outrage at his dismissal. They also had heavy criticism of Zawistowski, Jamie Munn, and the mayor.

THE CITY’s POSITION

THE PLANET obtained copies of the city’s confidential reports regarding Munn. These have not been previously published.

On May 5, HR director Taylor sent the reports to GIO (geographical information systems) coordinator Ryan Grennan in the engineering department and Heaher Brazeau, assistant city clerk. The reports are titled “Employee Conduct Investigation Report” and “Overtime Investigation Report.”

———- ooo ———-

Prior to firing Gary Munn, the city offered the following. Was it a generous offer … or … an attempt to shut him up?

Munn did not accept the offer, after which he received this letter:

Here are the two reports the city filed against Munn:

 Employee Conduct Investigation Report 

Background 

While investigating the overtime use of Gary Munn, with the authorization of Human Resources and the Chief of Police, I reviewed exterior camera footage of both City Hall and Pittsfield Police Department (PPD) to verify the times Gary was present at work. While reviewing the camera footage, I reviewed the access logs of both camera systems to see how much of my investigation Gary would be able to see. While reviewing these logs, I noticed that Gary had been viewing recorded footage at City Hall without any known purpose or authorization. When I viewed the footage that he was viewing, I noticed that he was watching recorded footage of me moving through City Hall. I immediately notified Human Resources and the Mayor and began an investigation into what looked like unauthorized surveillance. 

Scope 

This investigation included the review of camera access logs, recorded camera footage and computer logs. Information was reviewed going back to January 1, 2025 and footage going back to late January as this was the maximum recording length available. Camera logs included both PPD and City Hall while recorded video review included only City Hall due to the sensitivity of cameras at PPD. 

Method 

For this investigation, I reviewed camera access logs to confirm: 

• what cameras were accessed 

• when cameras were accessed 

• from where cameras were accessed 

• the subject of recorded footage viewed 

• any other patterns or concerns with such surveillance 

Findings 

While investigating the unauthorized surveillance, it was confirmed that Gary regularly monitored the door of the IT office with live video. The second most active live view was the camera to the Mayor’s Office and the camera in the City Council Chambers. Some views of recorded footage were too long to narrow down the subject of the view. 

On and around Feb 3 and Feb 5, Gary viewed recorded footage of Police officers entering and leaving City Hall and Entering and Leaving Room 203 including the Chief of Police. 

On February 14, Gary viewed recorded and live video of the CIO entering and leaving the Mayor’s office. The subject of this meeting was the proper use of the Public Safety IT Support Specialist position which Gary had knowledge of. 

On Feb 24 Gary Viewed recoded video of maintenance in the City Hall server room, in which he did not have an active role. 

Again on March 4 Gary viewed recorded footage of Officers entering a meeting in Room 203. 

On March 13, Gary viewed live and recorded video of the CIO entering and leaving the Quarterly Safety meeting. 

On March 24, Gary viewed live and recoded video of the Ordinance and Rules meeting at City Hall in which Gary’s spouse was present. This meeting was viewed while charging overtime. 

Beginning on April 1, Gary began following the CIO through the building. This appears to have occurred after it became known to Gary that his overtime was being investigated. On April 1, Gary viewed the CIO entering and exiting the Mayor’s office. On April 8, Gary followed the CIO through City Hall using live and recorded video while the CIO had a closed door talk with the Payroll Specialist. On April 9, Gary again followed the CIO through City Hall as the CIO entered the Treasurer’s Office, Payroll Office and the Solicitor’s office. 

On April 10, Gary watched recorded video of the S&P Union meeting. 

On April 11, Gary watched live and recorded video of the CIO entering Human Resources and the Mayor’s office. On this day Gary watched live and recorded video of his wife and others entering the Mayor’s office. 

On the following days it was noted that Gary viewed live and recorded video from a remote location other than his desk: April 9, April 14 and April 15, 2025. The subject of these videos were IT staff, including CIO and Police officers entering and leaving a meeting in City Hall. 

Not directly subject to this investigation and possibly worthy of further investigation is the use and access of cameras during overtime charged and the use and viewing of PPD internal camera recordings which he may or may not have been directed to view. 

Summary 

This use of City Hall security cameras for personal surveillance constitutes gross misuse of privileged access. This is in direct violation of the City’s Workplace Conduct Policy which classifies harassing surveillance or stalking (following or watching) a City employee/representative or family member as prohibited conduct. This conduct is in direct violation of the Internet and Computer Policy which states City computers and Internet are for official city business only. Additionally, the personal use of such systems may constitute a violation of State Ethics law. 

It is worth noting that Gary identifies himself as a Pittsfield Police Department employee and wears PPD identification and clothing. This unauthorized surveillance gives the perception to employees and potentially the public that PPD routinely monitors security cameras at City Hall and the Berkshire Atheneum. These systems are in place for the safety and security of employees and the public and are not to be actively monitored. The City complies with all public records requests and formal requests from law enforcement. The newly adopted Surveillance Technology Oversight Order is also clear on oversight of surveillance technology used by PPD. Use of City Hall and Berkshire Atheneum camera systems for PPD surveillance requires City Council approval, which has not been obtained. 

#####################

 Overtime Investigation Report 

Background 

While preparing for the fiscal year 2026 (FY26) budget for the Information Technology (IT) Department, I conducted a review of current staffing and future needs for the department. For this, I reviewed specifically if the amount of overtime charged for calendar year 2024 could amount to the cost of an additional full-time employee (FTE). During this review I noticed that there was a significantly higher amount of overtime charged by Gary Munn relative to other staff in my department. I expanded my look into overtime starting from January 1, 2025 to April 3, 2025 and noted that Gary had already accumulated $10,224 in overtime. The next highest employee had $1,047 in overtime year-to-date (YTD). 

The Public Safety IT Support Specialist I position reports directly to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and is a Supervisory and Professional (S&P) Employees Association bargaining unit member. As part of the job description, this employee works in collaboration with the Chief of Police and has previously been designated as a Limited Enforcement Agent (DLEA) of the Pittsfield Police the last of which expired in July of 2024. 

According to the employee handbook and the S&P Contract, Gary’s regular work hours are 7:30am to 4:00pm and is entitled to a 30 minute unpaid lunch break. 

The last signed Flexible Work Program agreement for Gary was signed on March 16, 2022 and was valid for the period of April 12, 2022 through April 29, 2022. No other telework agreement was found on file. 

On August 20th, I made my expectations for the department clear regarding remote work and overtime. 

On March 31st, I made my concerns regarding overtime and Gary’s overtime clear to the Mayor, Police Chief, HR Director and Treasurer. On April 1st I notified HR of my intent to verify Gary’s use of overtime. On April 7th at 2:41pm, I asked Gary for a copy of his overtime spreadsheet at after first asking the Chief for a copy at 10:08am on April 7th. 

With the approval of Human Resources and notification of the Chief of Police, I began an investigation into exactly why there was a large amount of overtime paid to Gary on a regular basis. 

Scope 

This investigation covered overtime charging for Gary Munn for the period of July 1, 2024, to April 5, 2025, specifically looking to account for why the overtime charged was nearly 10 times higher than the next highest employee in the department. The investigation included reviewing timesheets, overtime slips, computer access logs, networks logs, camera footage, and any other mechanism to substantiate the overtime compensation charged. 

Method 

For this investigation, I did the following 

• Collected and reviewed timesheets, overtime slips and Munis overtime information from July 1, 2024 to April 5, 2025. 

• Conducted an in-depth analysis of overtime for the two pay periods covering March 9, 2024 through April 5, 2025, including reviewing: • Exterior PPD camera footage for arrival/departure times 

• Overtime timesheets 

• Overtime slips 

• Regular-time time sheets 

• Bomgar logs 

• Active Directory Logs 

• Parallels logs 

• Fortigate VPN logs 

• SentinelOne Logs 

• Review of signed Flexible Work Plan, DLEA Warrant, and Job description, S&P Bargaining Unit Contract, and Employee Handbook 

Findings 

For the in-depth review of overtime compensation during the weeks of March 9, 2025 to March 22, 2025 I observed the following: 

During the first week of the pay period, Gary worked a total of 40 hours and 51 minutes leaving the potential for only 51 minutes of overtime compensation. Gary charged a 4-hour call-in for planned server maintenance that should instead be scheduled overtime totaling 45 minutes. During the pay period, Gary was paid for a 4-hour call-in, but was only entitled to 1.6 hours of overtime (96 minutes) and thus overpaid by $53.72 

During the second week of the pay period, Gary worked a total of 37 hours and 5 minutes of regular hours and charged 3 hours of overtime. On the day of charged overtime (March 20), camera footage shows that Gary arrived at 7:27am and left at 5:04pm and not at 7:00pm, which amounts to 1 hr and 4min of potential overtime (the amount charged was 3 hours). Based on camera footage and remote access logs, Gary did not work a full week and was not eligible for overtime when charged. Gary only worked a total of 38 hours and 9 minutes, making his work week short by 1hr and 51 minutes. The total amount overpaid for this week was $213.23. 

The total amount overpaid for the pay period of March 9, 2025 – March 22,2025 was $266.95. 

For the in-depth review of overtime compensation during the weeks of March 23, 2025 to April 5, 2025, I observed the following: 

During the first week of this pay period, using camera footage, Gary was observed at work for a total of 49 hours and 1 minute.. During this time, Gary charged 14 hours of overtime. This is 4 hours and 49 minutes more than time worked amounting to an overpayment of $242.61. 

During the second week of the pay period, Gary was observed at work for a total of 42 hours and 57 minutes.. During this time, Gary charged 6 hours and 30 minutes of overtime. This exceeds the hours he was eligible for overtime by 3hours and 27 minutes and as a result was overpaid by $178.81. 

For the entire pay period, it appears that Gary was overpaid for incorrectly charged overtime amounting to a total of $421.42. 

A high-level review of overtime charging for the time period of July 1, 2024 to March 8, 2025 was also performed to identify possible overtime charging anomalies or inconsistencies. For this period, I observed the following: 

On seven separate occasions, a 4-hour call-in was used instead of scheduled overtime for planned server maintenance. On two occasions, overtime was correctly charged for server maintenance. This appears to have occurred only when the total compensation was higher for the overtime (Overtime over 2.7 hours would result in more compensation than a 4-hour 

call-in). This suggests intentional mischarging to maximize the amount of compensation. On two occasions, call-ins were charged while on vacation for IT issues that could have gone to the IT helpdesk and handled by a staff member not on overtime. On 6 separate occasions, call-ins were charged for data migrations where overtime should have been charged instead. This is evidenced by one correct charging of the same data migration (which exceeded 2.77 hours) as overtime and not a call-in. 

These events amounted to an overpayment of $1,200.49. 

Unless otherwise accounted for and substantiated by Gary, the total amount of overtime compensation overpaid going back to July 1, 2025 was $1,888.86. 

This analysis only accounts for actual time present and working and did not examine the approval and justification for overtime and call-ins. 

No known flexible work agreement exists for Gary to work outside of the hours negotiated by the S&P bargaining unit of 7:30am to 4:00pm. No known authorizations for remote work prior to performing the work have been observed. It appears overtime was authorized after conducting the overtime work without prior approvals required. 

According to policy, overtime must be authorized prior to working. Working outside of the approved 7:30-4:00pm negotiated hours requires Department Head and HR approval via flexible work plan, prior to working an alternate schedule. 

Other Findings 

During the in-depth investigation into overtime use, it was also noted that a city-owned vehicle was used to transport Gary’s family members. This occurred a total of 14 times during the two pay periods covered. Most occurrences involved the blue city-owned Ford sedan and on at least one occasion a city-owned Ford Explorer Police cruiser. 

No written approval has been communicated to the IT Director from Gary. Further, it appears that these vehicles were used for Gary’s daily commute, which requires the approval of the City Council. 

While initiating this investigation, unauthorized surveillance by Gary Munn was also noticed, the findings of which are detailed in a separate investigation regarding employee conduct. 

Summary 

While investigating the past 6 months of overtime charging for Gary Munn, it is estimated that $1,888.86 was paid that he was not entitled to. This was based on reviews of timesheets, overtime slips, video footage and computer logs. 

It was also observed that Gary used city-owned vehicles for personal use on as many as 14 occasions for both commuting to and from work and transporting family members. 

Whether intentional or otherwise, both findings demonstrate a lack of regard for policy and communication. Gary is in a position of trust and is expected to conduct himself with integrity. In his role as Public Safety IT Support specialist and as a DLEA, Gary regularly encounters personally identifiable information (PII) and criminal history and record information (CHRI) and participates directly in criminal investigations. 

Gary has acknowledged this requirement of integrity through the signing of the city’s internet and computer user policy, mandatory ethics training and with his privileged user agreement for access to the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS). 

The lack of integrity demonstrated puts the city’s public trust at risk. It also risks closed and ongoing criminal investigations that Gary provided assistance with. 

———- ooo ———-

GARY AND DANIELLE MUNN’S POSITION

Here, THE PLANET presents Gary Munn’s response to the city’s charges. This give his side fully, in rebuttal to the city’s claims. As Danielle Munn points out, her husband submitted his rebuttal on May 5 to his supervisor, CIO Kevin Kawistowski. She says the city told her to “expect a response by the end of that week (May 5 was a Monday). The Munns are still awaiting a response, which likely will not be given, since they fired him. That response will almost certainly come in court.

If we’re going to start posting documents, then let’s post all of them. Our side submitted a 22-page legal response that directly addressed and dismantled every single accusation. We were told to expect a decision by the end of that week.

Instead, the CIO jumped the gun—pushing for termination before completing a proper investigation. When he realized how flimsy the accusations were, he scrambled, digging through eight years of emails trying to justify a decision that was already made. That’s not due process—that’s damage control.

And let’s be absolutely clear: most of the accusations didn’t even factor into the actual termination, because they couldn’t. Why? Because the CIO didn’t do his job. He acted prematurely, then panicked when it became obvious that the investigation didn’t support the outcome he wanted.

You can read the full rebuttal for yourself here:
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGsBtlMynU/xyorWDOEfksjNgmsvRZGHQ/view?utm_content=DAGsBtlMynU&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link2&utm_source=uniquelinks&utlId=h9c2a

####################

Most of the following material has been obtained by THE PLANET from statements made by Danielle either directly to us or taken from public posts.

Fast forward a few weeks, and I was actively opposing the Mayor’s ordinances [on homelessness]. I rallied dozens of people to speak at meetings. I encouraged the community to send emails, letters, and make calls. The pressure clearly bothered him—he even complained to mutual acquaintances that we had “villainized” him. That was March.

By early April, Gary noticed a shift in behavior from the CIO—cold, distant, off. Something wasn’t right. So on April 10th, Gary went to HR Director Michael Taylor to formally report what he believed was retaliation and emerging misconduct.

The next day—April 11th—I had a two-hour meeting with the Mayor, joined by some of our unhoused friends. He put on a pathetic show of empathy, making comments like, “These pants are three years old from JC Penney,” and “Look how scuffed my shoes are,” as if anyone in that room had the luxury of shopping at JC Penney. He added, “I’m no stranger to struggle—I couch-surfed once.” Must be nice to have couches.

And then—six days later, on April 16th—Gary was placed on administrative leave. No prior warning. No conversation. No explanation. They took everything—his keycards, work car, phone, laptop—all gone in an instant. The letter they handed him? Not even on letterhead. Not even professionally written. Just a slapdash excuse of a document meant to humiliate, not inform.

Since then, it’s been nothing short of a witch hunt—relentless harassment, retaliatory behavior, and bogus complaints filed with the Attorney General. We’ve been told by mutual friends that the Mayor has been actively warning people to “distance themselves from the Munns” because “what’s coming isn’t going to be pretty.” He’s gone so far as to verbally belittle Witch Slapped’s community work, dismissing our mutual aid efforts with open contempt—and frankly, he’s been acting like the pettiest tyrant imaginable. I call him Mean Girl Marchetti. 

#################

SELECTED DANIELLE MUNN FACEBOOK POSTS

FB2

I will give notice to our landlord—Witch Slapped will begin our final 30 days in our space.

The community center will shut down. That means:

No more workshops, pop-ups, mutual aid, or safe space

All donated goods will be handed off to other organizations.

We will launch a Going Out of Business Sale to liquidate inventory.

I’ll begin deep cleaning, packing, and closing our doors.

And I’ll start looking for a new job—because my family comes first, and we have to survive.

Donate: https://gofund.me/ab06e3b4

Share

Speak up

FB3

FB4

**Witch Slapped: They Tried, They Failed — Again

Well, here we are — again. When the first bogus complaint to the Attorney General’s office failed to stick, the powers-that-be tried another angle in their ongoing retaliation against our family and Witch Slapped.

This time? We were reported because Felicia — a beloved part of our community, who everyone knows volunteers here — was seen handling the register, cash, credit cards, and our point-of-sale system. Since there’s no W2 on file for Felicia’s volunteer work, the assumption was we must be doing something shady.

But here’s the truth (with proof):

Felicia does legitimate paid work for us. They invoiced us for professional inventory management services as part of a PERC grant — funding that was used exactly as intended.

Felicia also volunteers their time. Just like so many in our community who choose to give freely to help keep Witch Slapped’s mission alive.

We’re fully transparent. We worked with the city’s Community Development office, and we have documentation showing they approved our grant payments.

Let’s call this what it is: harassment. Retaliation. An abuse of power designed to silence and punish those who stand up against corruption. This is not the end, there is MORE and more comes everyday!

These statements reflect our personal experience and opinions as we navigate this ongoing ordeal.

Every attempt they make only proves how desperate they are to tear down what we’ve built. But guess what? We’re still standing. And we always will.

FB5

———- ooo ———-

That’s it for now.

Have a Happy Fourth!

——————————————————–

“Once scammed, it’s on you; twice scammed, then you must be in the City of Pittsfield” — Sir Donald Turpentine, Knight of the Bath

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE”

LOVE TO ALL

Copyright (c) 2025 By Dan Valenti, PLANET VALENTI and EUROPOLIS MANAGEMENT. All rights reserved. The views and opinions expressed in the comment section or in the text other than those of PLANET VALENTI are not necessarily endorsed by the operators of this website. PLANET VALENTI assumes no responsibility for such views and opinions, and it reserves the right to remove or edit any comment, including but not limited to those that violate the website’s Rules of Conduct and its editorial policies. Those who leave comments own all the responsibilities that are or can be attached to those comments, be they rhetorical, semantic, or legal. Such commentators remain solely responsible for what they post and shall be and remain solely accountable for their words. PLANET VALENTI shall not be held responsible for the consequences that may result from any posted comment or outside opinion or commentary as provided in, but not limited to, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and this website’s terms of service. We serve as a marketplace of ideas, without prejudice and available to all. All users of this site — including readers, commentators, contributors, or anyone else — hereby agree to these conditions by virtue of this notice and their use of/participation in this site. When PLANET VALENTI ends with the words “The Usual Disclaimer,” that phrase shall be understood to refer to the full text of this disclaimer.