Board approves addendum to acting superintendent’s contract after heated public comment

The Newburgh City School District Board of Education voted June 24 to approve an addendum to the acting superintendent’s appointment that includes a 90‑day termination notice and language preserving the acting superintendent’s pay through the end of December.

The move prompted extended public comment and criticism from community members and some district leaders who called the terms unusual, potentially costly and legally questionable. A group of executive‑level administrators presented a written vote of no confidence in the acting superintendent’s leadership during the meeting.

The addendum was separated from consent and placed for an individual vote. After public comment and an exchange with legal counsel, the board adopted the addendum by roll call (Yes: Stewart, Christine Bello, Thomasina Bello, Mackenzie Boucher, Victoria Boucher; No: Howard, Politi, Bergarelli). A board member stated, “The first paragraph has been deleted. Otherwise, the agreement is as written.”

Why it matters: Residents and some administrators said the terms create financial and legal risk for the district and argued the board could have tapped an internal deputy at far lower cost. Public commenters repeatedly cited the change from a typical 30‑day notice to 90 days and questioned whether the district would pay acting‑superintendent salary even if that person returned to another assignment or left their acting role.

Public comment and concerns

Dawn Fuchek of the town of Newburgh told the board the 90‑day notice clause is “highly unusual,” and said the addendum appears to guarantee the acting superintendent’s pay through Dec. 31 even if she is removed from the role. Fuchek asked if the district’s attorney had reviewed the document and said the arrangement “defies logic” and shows “a blatant disregard for fiscal responsibility.”

Mark Levinstein told the board the district has faced large lawsuits in the past and said the acting superintendent has been involved in prior settlements. He warned the addendum’s terms — especially extended notice and pay protections — could encourage additional litigation. “Why did board majority hire this person known to sue her employer in the first place?” Levinstein asked.

Several speakers — including newly elected board member Shaday Burks and Melanie Collins, a community advocate — criticized the personnel moves that preceded the addendum and said they reduce public trust. Assistant‑level and cabinet leaders read a formal statement into the record expressing a vote of no confidence in the acting superintendent’s leadership, listing procurement, budgeting, hiring and communication decisions as reasons for their declaration.

District and legal responses

Acting superintendent Dr. Baughn spoke during the meeting in other agenda items and defended instructional and staffing changes elsewhere in the agenda, but did not make extended remarks during the addendum discussion. The board asked district counsel to address legal questions about the addendum; counsel said he had drafted a version of the contract but would not answer detailed legal questions in public and noted the board had reviewed related material in executive session.

Board action and details

The board removed the addendum’s first paragraph before voting; the public record shows a roll‑call vote that approved the amended agreement. The formal motion and the names of the motion mover and seconder were not announced on the public record before the roll call. The board’s vote verified the adoption of the addendum despite opposition from three trustees.

Discussion vs. decision

The meeting record separates the two stages: extensive public comment and the cabinet’s written criticism (discussion), followed by an amendment to the agreement and a roll‑call vote that enacted the addendum (decision). Several public speakers requested the board identify the legal review supporting the contract language and asked the board to disclose the total fiscal impact; the board did not provide a consolidated cost estimate during the meeting.

What the record does and does not show

Speakers cited specific figures: Fuchek contrasted a previously reported $50 per‑day temporary arrangement (about $18,000 annually) with what she described as the “additional cost” the district is now shouldering — a figure she characterized as about $117,000 per year for the acting post. Other commenters referenced longevity and doctorate supplements reported in public statements; those claims appear in public comment and are reported here as the speakers presented them rather than as independent verified facts.

Next steps

The board recessed to executive session later in the meeting and added several personnel resolutions to the public minutes after that session. The approved addendum is now a public record and will be included in the district’s contract files.