PITTSFIELD — The release of a redacted version of the independent report on alleged faculty misconduct at Pittsfield High School appears to be in limbo over the potential for legal action against the schools if it is made public.

"We have received written communication from a lawyer representing an individual who is a subject in this report that they will 'pursue all available legal remedies,'” said Catherine VanBramer, the public information officer for Mayor Peter Marchetti, in response to whether the city had been "clearly and imminently threatened" with legal action.

"In addition, we have received notice from school unions that have indicated they will consider all appropriate legal actions," she said.

In January, the School Committee voted to release a redacted version of the full report following its review of its redactions. But in March, rather than releasing the report, the School Committee went into executive session “to discuss strategy with regard to litigation.”

When the investigation began in December 2024, the previous School Committee — most of which stepped down at the end of 2025 — said it would release the report to the extent legally allowed.

But the district’s legal counsel later advised against that, saying even a redacted release would cause an "unwarranted invasion of privacy" and have a chilling effect on witnesses' willingness to come forward in future investigations.

Instead, executive summaries of allegations against current and former employees — not identifying any of them by name — were made public and posted on the district's website. The report, and the state Department of Children and Families, concluded the bulk of the allegations were “unsupported.”

Later, the state Office of Public Records determined that the report, which cost the city nearly $155,000, was exempt from the public records law as it “falls within the core categories of personnel information.”

Asked Wednesday if the city’s legal counsel has advised against releasing the report at all, Marchetti declined comment.

Pittsfield School Committee member Ciara Batory, left, seen with fellow committee member Carolyn Barry, asked Mayor Peter Marchetti whether the city is facing imminent legal action if a redacted version of the report on alleged misconduct at Pittsfield High School is made public.

During Wednesday’s School Committee meeting, a vote to enter executive session to discuss the matter triggered an argument between Marchetti and School Committee member Ciara Batory, who pursued public release of the report as a private citizen before being elected last fall.

In that exchange, Batory said the committee had already voted to release the redacted report without voting on it again, while Marchetti insisted that the committee had agreed upon a School Committee review of its contents before making it public. They went back and forth several times, with Marchetti ruling Batory out of order and Batory refusing to yield the floor.

The argument started when, as the School Committee was about to vote on entering executive session, Batory raised a point of order. “Can we just clarify whether there's an active litigation or a specific legal claim?” she asked.

“There are threats,” Marchetti said.

“Okay, so then that's just a threat. That's not an actual legal claim,” she said

Pending litigation is one of 10 reasons a public body may go into executive session. But it must clear a bar set by the state’s open records law: that "litigation is clearly and imminently threatened or otherwise demonstrably likely.”

A review of the PCTV footage of the Jan. 28 meeting shows Batory making the motion to release the report, about 20 minutes into the meeting. In making her motion, she said “I’d like to add that the School Committee reviews [the report] before it is released to the public to make sure there is enough to present to the public.”

Carolyn Barry seconded that motion and the committee approved it 6-1 with Daniel Elias opposed.

The minutes from the Jan. 28 meeting read that the School Committee “review the Pittsfield High School Investigative Report with required redactions and approve it before it is released to the public.”

What appears to be in question is whether the committee would vote again after reviewing the redacted document. Batory noted in an email to The Eagle that no one offered such a formal amendment to her motion at the time.

“Additionally, the questions and discussion were not directed to me as the maker of the motion, which contributed to confusion and, in my view, led to my motion being interpreted in a way that was not consistent with what was actually stated,” she said.

“To be clear: my motion did not call for a re-vote. The intent was that a version of the report would be released, and I deliberately did not attempt to micromanage that process,” she said.

“My approach has been intentional — not reckless, but fair. The public deserves answers, and those answers can be provided responsibly through appropriate redactions,” Batory said. “We’ve seen other institutions, like Miss Hall’s School, choose transparency by releasing their full report. That demonstrated a commitment to honesty and to taking these matters seriously.”

Failing to follow through risks eroding trust even further, she said. "After everything parents have been through, trust is not optional — it has to be earned through action."

As for the threat of legal action? “We were told there was significant legal risk, yet no action was taken when a summary was released," she said. "At some point, we have to separate legitimate risk from fear-based decision-making — because the public deserves transparency, not speculation."