Pittsfield School Committee Delays Flag Policy Vote

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The School Committee needs more time with the proposed flag policy before a vote. 

On Wednesday, they forwarded it back to the policy subcommittee for more discussion. Legal counsel was concerned that allowing "flags commemorating significant events or causes consistent with the school district's official sentiments" could open the doors for a lawsuit. 

"We can say this isn't a public forum, but if the School Committee gets to put up whatever it wants to, and nobody else can, I think we're open to charge that we're giving preferential treatment to certain political or policy perspectives," Chair William Cameron said. 

Brought forward by School Committee member William Garrity, this policy is based on a model from the Framingham Public Schools with language from the flag ordinance approved by the City Council. He said districts are recommended to have a resolution or policy on flag protocols.

As forwarded, the policy allows Pittsfield's flag, the United States flag, flags of other nations recognized by the U.S. government, and flags commemorating significant events or causes consistent with the school district's official sentiments. 

Some districts display LGBTQ+ and disability pride flags. 

The policy establishes the Pittsfield Public School's guidelines "for the display of flags of governments recognized by the Federal Government, and other flags on the school district property," it reads. It directs classrooms, auditoriums, and "other appropriate indoor locations" in school buildings to fly the American flag, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts flag to be flown in all auditoriums. 

"Basically, the purpose would be following the city ordinance that just passed at City Council regarding flagpoles on the school property," Garrity explained. 

The council recently ordained a flag display policy allowing Pittsfield's flag, the United States and commonwealth flags, flags of other nations recognized by the U.S. government, and flags commemorating significant events or causes consistent with the city's values and mission. 



Reportedly, this ordinance doesn't automatically apply to the school district. 

At the Policy Subcommittee meeting earlier this month, the schools' flag guidelines were forwarded to the School Committee with an amendment to have flag decisions made by the committee and the superintendent, rather than just the superintendent. 

Garrity reported that the district's counsel was concerned about allowing other flags that align with the Pittsfield Public Schools' sentiments, fearing viewpoint discrimination charges. This remains a concern, even after further amending it to instead allow "other flags as approved by a vote of the School Committee." 

Cameron, who was included in the exchange with school attorney Russell Dupere, agreed that other flags shouldn't be allowed in the policy. He reported that a community member on the phone threatened to have the Confederate flag flown at all public buildings. 

"I did receive a phone call today. It's from someone who calls me not infrequently. I believe this is the sixth time that I've received a phone call from this individual who, after insulting me and other members of the School Committee, stated that she wanted to ensure that a Confederate flag be flown out of all public buildings, and failure to do this would be discrimination against white people," he said. 

"… If we want to entertain or have to deal with people who have views that may not be shared by members of the School Committee, we need, I think, to follow the legal counsel and not have ‘official sentiments,' or whatever the term is. I think it's best if we say, you can fly flags X, Y, and Z, and that's it." 

Garrity motioned to refer it back to the subcommittee for more discussion. 


Tags: flags,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Berkshire Concrete Lawsuit Seeks Damages, Continued Operation

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
DALTON, Mass. — Whether Berkshire Concrete can continue excavating after its permit was denied —and if the town is liable for damages — will be decided in a lawsuit the company has filed against the town, planning board and its members.
 
The suit was filed on behalf of Berkshire Concrete Corp., a subsidiary of Petricca Industries, by Jaan G. Rannik of Cohen Kinne Valicenti & Cook in Superior Court on April 13
 
Berkshire Concrete is suing for damages and wants the Planning Board's permit denial overturned.
 
The company seeks permission to operate on its entire property, and to have any future permit applications granted — unless they violate previous permit conditions and fail to fix them after formal written notice, or if the Mine Safety and Health Administration finds a public health danger requiring new restrictions.
 
It also requests that if a future renewal is denied for a violation and Berkshire Concrete disputes it or claims it didn't have time to fix, operations can continue until a  final decision is made.
 
The company claims the town breached its 1992 contract with Berkshire Concrete and the board exceeded its authority in denying the special permit. 
 
Berkshire Concrete claims that as a direct result of the town's breach of contract it suffered damages of no less than 1.9 million and will continue to incur additional damages. 
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories