Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Action topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newburgh Board suspends employee during due-process hearing after rejecting expanded public comment
Summary
At a special Jan. 23 meeting, the Newburgh Board of Education voted 5-4 to suspend employee No. 12325 with pay pending a contract-required due-process hearing; the board twice rejected motions to open a 30-minute public-comment period before going into executive session.
At a special meeting Thursday, Jan. 23, 2025, the Newburgh Board of Education voted 5-4 to suspend employee No. 12325 with pay and benefits while a contract-required due-process hearing is pending. The board also voted to recess into executive session to discuss employment matters and legal advice earlier in the meeting, and twice rejected efforts to open the floor for 30 minutes of public comment on agenda and non‑agenda items.
The suspension vote followed a motion added to the agenda and then approved on the floor. The motion, which was read into the record, states: "Be it resolved that employee number 12325 is hereby suspended with pay and benefits during the pendency of a due process hearing as required by contract." On the final roll call on the motion, board members Fred Stewart, Christine Bello, Thomasina Bello, Mackenzie Boucher and Victoria Boucher voted yes; Bergarelli, DeRey, Howard and Politti voted no, producing a 5-4 outcome.
The board earlier voted to recess into executive session to consider the employment history of a pedagogical employee or employees and to obtain advice of counsel. That motion passed on a separate roll call with six yes votes and three no votes.
Two separate motions to add a 30-minute public-comment period before the executive session failed. In the first vote, the motion failed 4-5; yes votes were Bergarelli, DeRey, Howard and Politti, and no votes were Christine Bello, Thomasina Bello, Mackenzie Boucher, Victoria Boucher and Stewart. Board member DeRey later moved a second time to open public comment, saying, "I'd like to make a motion that we've had people sitting here for 2 plus hours very patiently, and we open up the floor for public comments for 30 minutes on either agenda or non agenda items." That second motion also failed by the same margin.
Board member Howard urged caution before taking the suspension action, saying, "I'm hopeful that this vote will not pass. This resolution, I think, ... is premature. I think that more information is needed." Other members debated procedural steps for adding the suspension item to the agenda and for taking a final vote. After the suspension motion passed, the meeting moved toward adjournment.
The suspension is described in the motion as occurring "during the pendency of a due process hearing as required by contract." The transcript and meeting record did not specify the timeline for the hearing, the employee's name, or additional details of the allegations; the record shows only the employee identifier "12325." The board did not provide a date for the due-process hearing during the portions of the meeting on the public record.
The board opened and closed the meeting without taking additional, publicly recorded actions related to the employee beyond the suspension vote. The record indicates the board recessed into executive session as stated in its motion; the meeting minutes note that the board "may take action after executive session."
