PITTSFIELD — The Pittsfield School Committee voted Wednesday night against releasing a redacted version of an independent report into alleged faculty misconduct at Pittsfield High School, reversing course months after members initially approved making the document public — pending their review.

In a 4-2 vote, the Committee declined to make the full report — more precisely, five separate reports on allegations against separate current or former employees compiled last year — available to the public.

In January, the committee voted 6-1 to release a redacted version of the full report — though whether that meant by Feb. 18, or after a School Committee review of the redacted report remains contested. Several members were confused by that motion, saying its wording led them to believe a review would precede the final decision.

Asked why he changed his vote from yes to no, Pittsfield Mayor and School Committee Chair Peter Marchetti pointed to a question he raised during a December 2024 Committee meeting: whether the report would ultimately be released to the public. He said then-chairman William Cameron responded that the committee would release only what it could legally disclose.

"We have legal opinions from the city solicitor, outside counsel and state saying this is personnel file and should not be released," Marchetti explained.

Given those responses, and the receipt of two letters outlining intent to sue if the redacted full report was made public, "I don't think in good faith I could have voted to release the report," Marchetti said.

On Wednesday, committee member Sarah Muil placed three items related to the PHS report on the agenda: rescinding the Jan. 28 vote to release the report, reissuing the executive summaries produced last year, and releasing the redacted report as five separate documents, each focused on a current or former employee. Separating the reports was important, she said, because it clarified that the allegations involved different individuals and separate circumstances, rather than a broader conspiracy.

The committee approved republishing the surveys, which were originally published in May 2025. They had been removed from the district website at the request of the Pittsfield Educational Administrators' Association, the union representing administrative workers, human resources director Ann Marie Carpenter said Wednesday.

Those summaries will be republished with added context: A presentation made by Carpenter at the May 13 School Committee meeting outlining the district’s process for checking applicant backgrounds and investigating employee misconduct.

Voting yes to release the redacted full reports Wednesday were members Carolyn Barry and Ciara Batory. Voting no were Muil, Heather McNeice, Daniel Elias and Mayor Peter Marchetti. Committee member Katherine Yon was absent.

Muil, McNeice and Marchetti had all voted yes to release the report in January, while Elias had voted no.

McNeice, like Muil, said she believed her Jan. 28 vote that committee members would read it first and then make a final decision on releasing it with a second vote.

“All of the conversation around the report is distracting from the current issues and the courageous work that our new administration is doing,” McNeice said. “I promised to make every decision with one question in mind: What is best for students and teachers? Putting this to rest is exactly what Pittsfield Public Schools needs to focus on the future success of our district.”

In a statement sent to The Eagle on Thursday, Muil emphasized the importance of "confidentiality and respect" for all who participated in the investigation and spoke up.

"Even in the redacted reports, those people were at risk of being recognized because these particular cases have been so publicly scrutinized," she said. "I felt it was in our best interest to vote against the release for those reasons and the fact that we were advised by our legal counsel not to release the redacted reports due to the possibility of legal ramifications."

Elias said for the sake of the city's oldest high school and its students, it's time to stop talking about a scandal that has obscured its many accomplishments.

"I assume this is the end of the line for it. And I think for PHS' sake, they’re dying to have this be over," Elias said. "They've had endure a whole year of this now through no fault of their own."

Batory, who filed a complaint with the state Public Records Office in an attempt to force the release of the report last year, said parents and taxpayers still want to know how the cases were handled and whether the allegations had merit. No parents have asked her to beg off the pursuit, she said.

“[This] has not gone away for a reason — people want to know what happened. These are people’s children” who are affected, she said. As a parent, Batory said if she didn’t have a positive relationship with the administrators and teachers as her children’s schools. “I would have pulled all three.”

Elias, recapping his reasons to oppose the release, said he remained swayed by the advice of legal counsel against releasing the report.

“Insurance covers us against lawsuits unless there’s neglect on our part,” Elias said. “I fear with the legal opinion that puts our insurance in jeopardy.”

Elias also said that three of the reports showed investigators substantiated no wrongdoing.

“If someone betrays public trust they get what they deserve and I do not have a problem with them being held accountable,” he said. “But to ruin someone's reputation, it has to be fact, not rumors.”

Moving forward, Marchetti said, it's the School Committee's job to set policy — and if there are initiatives or changes that can improve student safety or prevent negative outcomes, that's where its focus should be, he said.

"Releasing a report isn't going to make kids safe," he said. "Putting in protocols and policies and making sure they are followed is what will make children safe."