The Newburgh City School District Board of Education on May 29 approved a series of human‑resources measures and tabled a contentious proposal to abolish district positions after multiple members of the public urged the board to preserve staff jobs.

What the board did: The board passed resolution 7.2 (human‑resources action listed on the agenda) by roll call (tally: 6–3; yes: Mister Stewart, Miss Christine Bello, Miss Thomasina Bello, Miss Mackenzie Boucher, Miss Victoria Boucher, Mister Bergarelli; no: Mister Howard, Miss Politi, Mister DeRay). The board also approved resolution 7.7 to rescind curriculum‑writing appointments (unanimous yes on roll call), moved to table resolution 7.9 (the item proposing position abolitions) on a roll call that carried, and approved resolution 7.11 as amended (final vote as amended: yes 8, no 1). The board approved resolution 7.12 (creation of new central‑office positions) on a roll call with a divided vote (tally recorded during roll call: yes 5, no 4).

Why the items drew public comment: Dozens of public speakers — including students, parents, educators and residents — addressed the HR items during the public‑comment period. Many speakers focused on agenda items 7.9 and 7.11, which they said would eliminate experienced directors and replace some unionized positions with nonunion or differently classified roles. Student speakers who identified themselves as Newburgh Free Academy seniors warned of the human cost to students if mentors and directors were removed. Resident Dawn Fuchek cited the district’s recent budget process and said the community voted on May 20 for a proposed budget that included restored positions; she said bringing the same positions back for abolition “is not what the community voted for.”

Legal concerns and union warnings: Dawn Fuchek and others noted a letter the board received from the School Administrators Association of New York State (SAANYS) and related unions warning of possible legal action. In public comments and at the podium, speakers referred to potential claims under the Taylor Law and New York education law for bad‑faith abolitions and improper transfers of bargaining‑unit work; the board did not take a legal action at the meeting but counsel and public commenters confirmed those statutes and union processes were being cited.

Staff and board discussion: Associate Superintendent Leamer presented the human‑resources slate and the board considered separating several items from consent for discussion. Board members debated timing and process: some said the appointments and reorganizations were premature or fiscally irresponsible (noting, for example, an appointment to a future co‑principal role at a building not yet open); others defended the slate as necessary reorganization. Several board members requested job descriptions for new positions and confirmation those descriptions had been provided previously to the board and cabinet.

Clarified counts and personnel effects (as stated during public comment and on the agenda): Public commenters cited the package as including the termination of one employee, rescission of two curriculum‑writer hires, abolition of approximately 20 positions across 17 employee categories (public comment named 7 NTA teachers and 13 administrative positions), and the transfer of three principals. The board tabled the specific resolution to abolish positions (7.9), according to the roll call at the meeting.

Votes at a glance (selected HR items):
- 7.2: approved (roll‑call yes: Stewart, C. Bello, T. Bello, M. M. Boucher, V. Boucher, Bergarelli; no: Howard, Politi, DeRay).
- 7.7 (rescind curriculum writing): approved (unanimous yes on roll call).
- 7.9 (proposal to abolish positions): motion to table carried (tabled).
- 7.11 (appointment to co‑principal role, amended): approved as amended (final roll call yes 8, no 1).
- 7.12 (create central‑office positions, including communications strategist and assistant superintendents): approved (split vote recorded).

What public speakers asked for: Many asked the board to (a) restore the positions the community had voted into the budget on May 20, (b) provide transparent data and job descriptions justifying reorganization, and (c) avoid replacing unionized titles with nonunion roles. Several speakers warned that the district could face lawsuits and additional costs if the board proceeded without a clear process or contractual compliance.

Ending: Board members asked administrators to provide job descriptions and more detailed fiscal information at future meetings. With the abolition proposal tabled, the board left open opportunities for additional review and possible revision to the human‑resources slate before final implementation.