Professional Documents
Culture Documents
December 11, 20 14
SPR14/402
Ms. Kathleen E. Degnan, Esq.
Pittsfield City Solicitor
City Hall
70 Allen Street, Room 200
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Dear City Solicitor Degnan:
This office has received your request for reconsideration of my prior decision regarding a
previously closed public records appeal. See SPR14/402 Determination of the Supervisor of
Records (July 25, 2014). I held that the City of Pittsfield (City) failed to satisfy its burden of
specificity in responding to a public records request made by Joe Durwin, Pittsfield
Correspondent for Boxcar Media, Inc. Mr. Durwin requested copies ofrecords related to a
complaint under investigation by the City's Human Rights Commission (HRC). I ordered the
City to provide copies of unredacted responsive records or provide a detailed explanation as to
the City's exemption claim.
SPR14/402
TheHRC
To assist in my review, you also provided information from the Pittsfield City Code
(Code) that establishes the HRC, the body that is withholding the responsive records. See
Article XXVII of Chapter 2 ofthe Code. As you explained in a September 29, 2014 telephone
conversation, the purpose of the HRC is to investigate complaints of discrimination and other
denials of equal access. Sec. 2-141(1).
In the September 29th conversation, you explained that the withheld records consist of
materials related to a current investigation by a non-quorum subcommittee of the HRC. See Sec.
2-141 (6). You further explained that once the subcommittee concludes its investigation it will
present its findings in a written report that will be made available to the public. See Sec. 2141(3).
Exemption (f)
Whereas the HRC's investigation remains ongoing, it is withholding certain responsive
records pursuant to Exemption (f) of the Public Records Law. This exemption applies to:
investigatory materials necessarily compiled out of the public view by law
enforcement or other investigatory officials the disclosure of which materials
would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such
disclosure would not be in the public interest
G. L. c. 4, 7(26)(f)
Exemption (f) may be used by investigative officials if the disclosure of records could
have an adverse effect on an effective law enforcement investigation. WBZ-TV 4 v. District
Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 408 Mass. 595, 603 (1990).
In your letter you argue that disclosure of these documents prior to the conclusion of the
HRC investigation could adversely affect "the HRC's ability to conduct a fair and thorough
investigation" into the complainant's claim, "meaning that publication of the investigative
material may put public pressure on the HRC to resolve [the complainant's] complaint in such a
way that is not consistent with the purpose of the HRC as stated in the city's by-law."
It appears that many months have passed since this complaint was filed, and no
information was provided to this office by you, the City or the HRC to indicate that any
investigation is active at this time. See "Discrimination claim against Mayor Bianchi tabled until
status of federal, state complaints learned," by Jim Therrien, Berkshire Eagle
(berkshireeagle.com/news/ci_25976768/ discrimination-claim-against-mayor-bianchi-tabled-
SPR14/402
illiams