As I have a bit more free time now that classes have ended for me, I can now address the mess that was the Participation by the School Committee section of April 29^th meeting. And wow, there is a lot to address.

In all of my time following the Pittsfield School Committee, I’ve never seen any member get into a verbal yelling match with anyone at a meeting. Sure, I’ve seen it at City Council meetings and I’ve seen it by members of the public towards us, but I’ve never seen one member going after another member (or the whole group for that matter).

This disappoints and frustrates me. Good governance is one where people get along with each other, not necessarily agreeing with each other but at least can be on good terms. Good governance should be boring, not something that should be entertaining to watch. That wasn’t the case at the last meeting, and this School Committee has found itself in more shouting matches and members making themselves look good in front of the camera than I have seen in any term prior. While it seems it’s only one member causing most of the issues, I do feel there is more than one person responsible for the mess we are now in.

But before I can address what happened at the last meeting and some of incorrect information and stretches of the truth that were on display, I have to explain a few things about the operations of the School Committee and how it seems to have changed since I was on there.

Rules of Order of the Pittsfield School Committee

The Pittsfield School Committee primarily operates under School Committee Policy BED Revised Rules and Orders of the Pittsfield School Committee. This policy outlines the 21 or so rules of order for all School Committee meetings, from the agenda format to the time limit on meetings to the rules of the meetings.

The two rules that are important for this blog post are Rule 8 which discusses how the agenda gets set:

Rule 8.  The Superintendent and the Chairperson of the School Committee shall prepare an agenda for each meeting of the School Committee.  Such agenda shall follow the foregoing.  At the discretion of the School Committee Chairperson, the agenda may be modified to accommodate school and community partner presentations.  The order of business as appearing on the agenda shall not be departed from except by a vote of the majority of the members present.  A Committee member shall have the right to have an item placed on the agenda, provided that such a request is made at least seven (7) days prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting.

And Rule 17 outlines the parliamentary authority the School Committee follows:

Rule 17.  Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be the authority adopted by the School Committee on all points, questions of debate, and parliamentary practice, when the same does not conflict with the Rules and Orders of the School Committee.

As was brought up many times during the meeting, the School Committee’s parliamentary authority is Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (RONR). This is the set of rules that governs how the School Committee conducts debate and votes on motions and actions at meetings, among others. However, the end of the rule states that RONR doesn’t apply when it conflicts with the School Committee’s own rules. Additionally, when there is a conflict between RONR and state law, state law takes priority. This comes into play with some of the restrictions the Open Meeting Law places on public bodies.

I can safely say from my time serving on many different bodies that follow RONR that most bodies do not follow all its rules regarding debate and structure. Most public bodies don’t take a vote to approve the agenda, which is a requirement that RONR has for meetings, as agenda must be posted 48 hours before the meeting starts with the Open Meeting Law. The School Committee and some other smaller public bodies don’t enforce the rule of only speaking on a motion or agenda item twice in one meeting. However, all bodies still follow RONR when it comes to making, amending, and voting on motions, and most tend to have individual members address the chair of the meeting.

Agenda Format and Submitting Items for the Agenda

The School Committee has a less formal agenda format compared to other public bodies where it lists the items that will be discussed at the meeting, and that is it. With some more recent exceptions with this school committee which I will get to, it doesn’t list who submitted each agenda item. For example, this agenda from February 26^th, 2025 where I submitted the resolution regarding LGBTQ+ and Transgender students doesn’t list that I submitted the item, only that it is on the agenda for discussion:

This is in contrast with the Pittsfield City Council which lists who submitted each agenda item, be it the City Administration or Councilors themselves. Each submission is either called a “communication” if it comes from the administration or a “petition” if it comes from a Councilor or a member of the public. Here is a snippet of the April 14^th, 2026 agenda which shows both types of items:

Additionally, while most school committees in the state do not do this the Worcester School Committee does list who submitted each agenda item, whether it be from members or from the administration, and a recommendation on what should happen to the item. Here is a snippet from their May 7^th, 2026 agenda:

As you can see, the Pittsfield School Committee tends to be more informal on how members’ agenda item request are handled and listed on the agenda. Members reach out to the chair to put an item on the agenda, usually just for discussion with not much of a recommendation unless they are proposing something (as was the case with my resolution), and then it gets added to the agenda.

However, the current School Committee has departed from this practice, given the amount of turnover in the body as well as having a different chair. School Committee Member Batory seems to be the only member who has submitted items so far, but she has gone about it in an unusual manner. Her requests have been requests for a “motion” to be placed on the agenda, which isn’t standard practice. Members submit an item to be placed on the agenda, then during the meeting the member who requested the item can make their own motion.

Batory has so far requested 4 things during her time on the Committee:

• A “motion request by Committee Member Ciara Batory to release the May 2026 Pittsfield High School Investigative Report with Required Redactions (By February 18, 2026)” at the January 28^th meeting.
• A “motion request by Committee Member Ciara Batory for discussion of current school event safety protocols and procedure enforcement” at the February 11^th meeting.
• A “Request by Ciara Batory regarding safety guidelines for participation in school-sponsored events” at the March 25^th meeting.
• A “Request by Ciara Batory regarding maintain Tier 1 classrooms at Capeless, Egremont, and Williams Elementary Schools where demand exists and to lift school choice restrictions when seats are available” at the March 25^th meeting.

Some of these, such as the PHS report, are requests for the School Committee to consider a proposal. However, some of them are asking for a discussion to take place or for the administration to present some information at a meeting. None of these need to be submitted as “motion requests”, just regular items to be on the agenda.

What is interesting is that under Marchetti’s chairpersonship, the agendas have listed her name on the items she requested, deviating from past practice. Additionally, between February 11^th and March 28^th the wording changed from “motion request” to just “request”, which is more in line with what these requests are doing, though still not in line with past practice.

Addressing What Went Down

From my understanding the purpose of the Participation by the School Committee segment of the meeting is meant to allow members to talk about school events and activities they did in the past month, allow for members to make statements regarding school related issues (both good and bad), and/or ask for items to be placed on the agenda for future discussion and deliberation. It’s not meant to be a back and forth between members of the committee, nor is there meant to be any deliberation by members regarding school-related matters not on the agenda as that would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law. And for the most part, most school committee members have been respectful during this period and avoided trying to deliberate on agenda items.

That is not what happened at the last meeting.

During Batory’s turn, she questioned both the Superintendent and the Mayor regarding two matters, the closing of Morningside Community School and the PHS report, both of which were not on the agenda. And for her whole argument regarding the PHS report, it generated enough deliberation that I would go as far and say that the School Committee violated the Open Meeting Law. It was not on the agenda, yet multiple members participated in a discussion regarding the report. Marchetti, being chair and being responsible for setting the agenda and ensuring the Committee only talks about items on the agenda, should have shut down the whole discussion by saying that any further discussion would constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law. Batory, knowing that she would bring both items for discussion, should have asked for both items to be placed on the agenda through the proper process. Both are in the wrong here, and this whole mess could have been prevented.

The Original Vote to Release a Redacted Report

One of Batory’s central arguments is that the vote the School Committee took back in January to release the PHS Investigative Report with redactions meant the report must be automatically released once the February 18^th deadline hit.

At the January 28^th meeting Batory made the following motion, which was seconded and approved 6-1 with Elias opposed: “I move the committee vote to release the PHS Investigation Report in a redacted form by February 18^th, 2026, and I’d like the add that the School Committee reviews it before it’s released to the public to make sure that there is enough to present to the public.” It was the interpretation of several members of the Committee that they would review the redacted report and determine if there was enough information to warrant release to the public. Additionally, Marchetti stated “It won’t be released until the School Committee has approved that version”, which nobody including Batory raised an objection to.

Batory is now claiming that motion means the redacted report must be released, no matter what, once the February 18^th deadline has passed. But that doesn’t line up with the original intent of the vote. Her original motion had the School Committee be able to review the redacted report to make sure “there is enough to present to the public”, implying that the Committee would be the ones to decide what is considered “enough to present to the public” through another vote. It wouldn’t make sense if the Committee found there wasn’t enough to present, or if anything that they could present would get the Committee into a lawsuit that they would most certainly lose, but the redacted report would get released anyways just because an arbitrary deadline passed. I’m also certain that is the interpretation of both the Committee’s legal counsel and the legal counsel for the Massachusetts Teachers Association, because if it wasn’t the MTA would have already launched a lawsuit against the School Committee as they have threatened to do if any version of the report is released.

Batory claims that a “motion is not a motion to make another motion, that makes no sense”, yet that is how it works. Motions can, and often do, lead to other motions having to be made at some point in the future. When the Committee hires for any position, it makes a motion to offer the appointment to the individual and then a few meetings later makes a motion to approve a contract of employment with that person. With Morningside, the Committee made a motion to close down Morningside, which will then require the School Committee to make a motion and vote on new elementary school attendance zones without Morningside. This is the case with Batory’s original motion, the Committee voted to request a redacted version of the PHS report, and the Committee will then have to make a future motion on whether or not there is enough information to release to the public.

Now, could the original motion have been clearer? Yes, I think adding any mention of a deadline is ripe for confusion and unneeded conflict. While I still think the intent of the motion would have been the same, the original motion could have been clearer by saying that the School Committee would get the redacted report for review by February 18^th, or when it was ready for review by legal counsel if the process took longer.

Additionally, the Committee hasn’t voted to decide whether there is enough information to be released. The Committee went into executive session regarding the reports on both March 11^th and March 25^th, but both times the only vote taken was to approve the minutes of the prior executive session meeting. I think the intent of the agenda item on the March 25^th meeting was to vote on whether or not to release the report, but that did not happen as no member made a motion to take any action on the redacted report. If the Committee wants to clear things up, it should take a vote on whether or not the report as redacted by legal counsel should be released at a future meeting to end this whole debacle.

The Poorly Worded Agenda Item

Batory’s other central argument was that Mayor Marchetti put an item on the agenda “under her name” regarding the PHS report for the March 25^th meeting, which was listed as “Request by Ciara Batory to release the May 2025 Pittsfield High School Investigative Report with Required Redactions”, appearing under the new business section. There is also an effort in some parts of the Pittsfield Facebook sphere to have people send letters to the State Ethics Commission calming that Marchetti abused his position as chair as he “authored and/or submitted a motion that appeared under the name of School Committee member Ciara Batory”. However, I feel this is stretching the truth quite a bit.

First, the State Ethics Commission has no oversight here. They primarily focus on violations of the Conflict of Interest Law, which deals with normal conflict of interest matters such as issues around government employee’s family members and financial interests. They do not focus on issues that arise of the internal operations of a public body, such as how items are added and displayed on the agenda and how meetings are run. Improper wording of a motion or the allegation of submitting a motion under another person’s name does not fall under the Conflict of Interest Law. So I’m certain that will go nowhere and is only being promoted to rile people up online.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, School Committee members don’t submit motions to be placed on the agenda, they submit agenda items. Additionally, past practice until really this new Committee came along was that agenda items do not have the person’s name who requested them attached to it. So, an agenda item isn’t truly attributable to one person.

It seems Marchetti’s intent in wording the agenda item this way was to have a discussion on Batory’s past request for the PHS reports to be released, not that Batory requested to have a discussion about releasing the report, which does make sense. However, the agenda item should have been worded better to show that intent. As the item was listed after two other items that Batory requested to be on the agenda that both began with “Request by Ciara Batory”, a reasonable person would have assumed that the PHS report item was a request by her. Further, as this item was a discussion on a previous action it really should have been placed under unfinished business as it would be discussing an action that the Committee has not taken yet. Finally, as the Committee voted to approve Batory’s motion to release a redacted version of the PHS report, it’s no longer Batory’s request but the Committee’s request, which should have been reflected in the agenda item. A better worded agenda item could have been “Update on Request to Release the May 2025 Pittsfield High School Investigative Report with Required Redactions”, which would have avoided this mess.

In short, do I believe Marchetti made a poor wording choice in how this item appeared on the agenda? Yes, I do, it should have been worded differently to truly reflect the intent of the discussion. Do I believe this was an abuse of power and that an agenda item was wrongly submitted under Batory’s name? No. Hanlon’s razor applies very well here: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Parliamentary Procedure

Batory also brought up RONR several times during her argument and that the Committee was not following RONR properly, claiming that she “read the rules and I write motions and I study the rules”. However, I feel she presented several claims that were false about parliamentary procedure and additionally did not follow it herself, as well as some misunderstandings about how a committee should work together.

First, per RONR when a member has the floor, they address the chair and the chair only. Batory directed comments and questions to other members of the school committee, such as when asking if each member read the full PHS report and if they have any ties to any of the individuals mentioned in the report. That is not permissible as she cannot direct comments towards other members like that under RONR, such comments and questions must be directed through the chair.

Additionally, Batory incorrectly stated that Member Muil cannot make a motion to rescind the prior vote regarding the PHS report as she was not “on the opposing side”. There are two types of motions that can be made to rescind a prior motion, a motion to reconsider and a motion to rescind a prior motion. A motion to reconsider allows a body to reconsider a motion it made earlier during the same meeting; however it can only be made by someone on the prevailing side of the motion, not the opposing side as Batory mentioned. Reconsideration doesn’t apply here as the original motion was voted on meetings ago. The only way the Committee can undo the vote is through a motion to rescind, which can be made by any member of the body. Luckily, this was clarified in the meeting, but as a person who knows quite a bit about parliamentary procedure it was frustrating to hear this claim aired in a meeting by someone who claims to know “the rules”.

Finally, Batory made the argument that the goal of the Committee is to not work as a team, but to represent the public. Additionally, she criticized how the other members of the Committee all vote the same, stating: “How is that even possible? What are the odds”. Working as a team doesn’t mean you will all agree in the same way, but it does mean that everyone treats each other with respect and understanding and offers different points of view. Further, after the committee has decided on a certain matter all members have an obligation to support the decision of the majority and try not to undermine it.

During my time on the committee, I was a part of many dissenting votes, including some 6-1 votes. I didn’t get into shouting matches with my colleagues, and I didn’t raise my voice at anyone. I shared my disagreements, made suggestions on where practices could be clearer, and moved on. We had a good group of people where we could work out issues to ensure that everyone could vote yes on a certain motion or issue and help to make processes better. When Marchetti raised concerns about how we approve the personnel report, I made a suggestion to change the motion to “accept and place on file”, making everyone satisfied. The job of the committee should be to problem solve and work together to resolve issues and make processes clearer, not put up fights and make statements that look good for the TV cameras and the Facebook comment section.

So, Where Should the Committee Go From Here

Based on all of this, I believe the Committee should do the following:

First, all members should understand the Open Meeting Law and that if they want to discuss something during a meeting, they should request an item to be placed on the agenda through the existing process.

Second, the wording of agenda items should be made clearer to show the intent of the item on the agenda. This mess the Committee found itself in was preventable if agenda items were better worded. Honestly, I feel the Committee should no longer put members’ names next to items that are requested as this has been a deviation from past practice and seems to create more conflict and confusion.

Third, if the Committee wants to clear up the whole releasing the redacted version of the PHS report, it should take one of two actions:

1. The Committee should hold another vote in public session to determine whether or not to release the redacted version of the PHS report based on if there is enough information in it to warrant it being released. This would be in line with the intent of the January 28^th motion to release the report.
2. To really clear things up, the Committee could also vote to rescind the January 28^th motion entirely. This would end the whole issue on releasing the report as it would be treated like no motion was made in the first place.

It does not seem like this discussion will be taking place at the meeting on Wednesday, May 13^th even though it was implied during the last meeting that it will. I’m not fully sure of the reason, though it would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law if the discussion came up during Participation by the School Committee again, which I feel like will happen given Batory and others are trying to get people to come out to the meeting. Thus, it would have to come up at a future meeting.

Some Final Thoughts

This dysfunction and mess that the current School Committee found itself in is what I feared with 5 out of the 7 School Committee members being new this term, a new chair, a mostly new Superintendent cabinet, and a new Superintendent and School Committee executive secretary. There is so much turnover that a lot of the processes, practices, and lessons learned from prior School Committees and other district matters are not getting passed along, causing conflict and confusion. This is what happens when there is a lot of turnover.

Finally, I want to share my appreciation for McNeice on how she chaired the meeting during Batory’s argument. Given that she has been a teacher for decades, she understands how to manage conflict and how to get everyone back on the right track (which I also know from personal experience), which showed during the meeting. I feel this helped to prove my point that the School Committee really needs an educator as chair during these rough times for the Pittsfield Public Schools.