East Ramapo trustees say state monitors rejected their unanimous superintendent finalist without explanation
Loading...
Summary
Board president said the district followed the search process but state monitors disapproved the board's unanimous finalist and reposted the vacancy; trustees demanded transparency and asked monitors to explain procedural reasons but monitors declined to comment on personnel in public.
The East Ramapo Central School District board told the public on March 10 that state monitors disapproved the district's unanimously chosen superintendent finalist despite monitors's prior participation in the search, prompting sharp questions from trustees about process and transparency.
Board President Rose read a prepared statement tracing the search: Southern Westchester BOCES and Dr. Howard Coles managed recruitment; the firm received 28 applications, shortened the list and presented candidates; the board interviewed finalists and selected a candidate the board described as a bilingual Latina living in the district. The board said state monitors participated in interviews and did not object to the two finalists; nonetheless, a letter dated March 13 from the state monitors "disapproved of the board's recommendation," the statement said.
"The monitors disapproved the board's recommendation without explanation, rationale, or guidance," Rose read, saying the board had followed the consultant's process and met with the state education commissioner to seek an explanation.
Trustees pressed the monitors at the meeting for procedural clarity. A monitor who spoke declined to discuss personnel matters in public: "I'm not gonna talk about a candidate personnel issue in public space," the monitor said. In a separate reply about process, a monitor said, "You approve candidates. We did not approve candidates to come before you," and that monitors sometimes removed candidates earlier in the pipeline for reasons "for the benefit of the district." That procedural defense did not satisfy several trustees, who called the sequence of selection and later disapproval inconsistent and demanded public answers.
Board members also objected that Westchester BOCES reposted the vacancy without the board's knowledge, which the board said undermines its role and could narrow the candidate pool (the reposting asked applicants to reply by April 3 and was timed close to holidays). Several trustees said they traveled to Albany to advocate for the district's choice and met with state legislators and the state education commissioner.
The board did not receive a public explanation at the meeting. Monitors reiterated that personnel-specific concerns must be handled confidentially; trustees said they want greater transparency about the monitors' standards and asked administration and counsel to seek clarification outside the public session. The search may proceed under the monitors' oversight; Westchester BOCES had reposted the vacancy and the board said it would continue to advocate for a reconsideration of the decision.
Next steps: trustees asked counsel and the administration to pursue avenues to seek an explanation from the monitors and to update the community. No formal appeal or final action on a new hire was taken during the meeting.
