Newburgh parents, clergy and residents demand explanation after board suspends superintendent

Dozens of Newburgh residents pressed the Newburgh Board of Education on Jan. 28 for an explanation after the board moved to suspend Superintendent Jacqueline Manning Campbell, many saying the action lacked notice and due process.

Community members said the suspension has stirred anger, fear and confusion among families and staff. “There is no paper trail, no due process,” said Reverend Torrance Robinson, a retired principal, who urged the board to reinstate the superintendent or explain the reasons for the suspension. “Someone should have had some type of conversations with the superintendent before suspending her.”

The public comment period, which drew a large crowd, included parents, faith leaders and longtime residents who said they felt sidelined by board decisions. Dawn Fucek, a Newburgh resident, told the board the action “potentially placed this district at a significant risk of liability for not just hundreds of thousands of dollars, but potentially millions.”

Other speakers raised operational and equity concerns. Shadi Burks, identified herself as a resident and parent, asked who will pay for another superintendent if the district replaces the suspended leader: “If we suspend this superintendent and if we fire her, we are now paying her 3 years of salary plus another superintendent 3 years of salary,” she told the board. Several speakers warned that a lengthy legal fight could cost taxpayers and further destabilize schools.

Board members did not provide detailed explanations of investigatory findings during the public comment period. Multiple speakers said they had not been told what specific allegations, if any, prompted the suspension. “We don’t know, and she doesn’t even know why she’s suspended,” Robinson said.

Deputy Superintendent Onyx Peterson, who spoke later in the meeting about district operations, said she is running the district in the superintendent’s absence and asked for community cooperation: “I am running the district right now.” Peterson also urged transparency in budget questions and invited community members to submit questions by QR code so staff could follow up with answers.

Several public commenters urged the board to restore the superintendent and to avoid actions they said would harm students and staff morale. Dennis Grant, a community member who identified himself with Clear Choice Coalition criticisms, accused the board’s majority of targeting leadership rather than focusing on student outcomes. “When our school district fails and falls short, don’t complain because you have contributed to this mediocrity,” Grant said.

The board did not announce disciplinary details at the meeting. Members later voted to add an agenda item to appoint an acting superintendent, a move that some trustees and public commenters called premature because they said legal counsel and interviews had not occurred. The appointment was carried on a roll call (see “Votes at a glance”).

The dispute occurred amid broader testimony about district priorities, including athletics, audits and policy changes, and came as the board also advanced an RFP for a forensic audit. Several speakers urged the board to prioritize students and to provide clear written reasons when personnel actions are taken.

Community members said they will continue to press elected trustees for documentation and transparency, and some urged voters to use the May election as a forum to settle disputed board direction.

Ending: The board did not provide a detailed explanation of the superintendent’s suspension at the meeting. Community members left the Jan. 28 meeting calling for documentation and for a transparent process; when and how the board will produce that information was not announced at the session.