Cliffside Park hearing held over nonrenewal of special‑education administrator Dr. Charlene Pinto

The Cliffside Park School District Board of Education held a public Donaldson hearing July 6 on the nonrenewal of Dr. Charlene Pinto, a special‑education administrator, after the district’s administration cited multiple job‑performance deficiencies and Pinto’s attorneys argued the decision was pretextual and retaliatory.

The district’s statement of reasons, read by Superintendent Mr. Reinfist, listed multiple alleged shortfalls including “about 50 observations that Charlene was supposed to complete that were not completed,” incomplete self‑assessments and documentation logs, restricted access to special‑education records, alleged refusal to meet about state testing accommodations, hiring a non‑certified teacher, and an incorrect district email claiming passage of Indicator 11 of the New Jersey Department of Education special‑education profile. “This was purely job performance based,” Reinfist said when summarizing the district’s position.

Dr. Pinto’s counsel, attorney Steven Drummond, told the board the written response on her behalf — a nine‑page document entered into the record — showed the nonrenewal was pretextual. “It wouldn’t take me a long time to persuade six reasonable jurors to point out that what is said and the reason that’s being offered is pretextual,” Drummond said, urging board members to review the record closely and to view their role as a check on administrative power.

Drummond and a co‑counsel identified in the record as Miss Scolacci argued that Dr. Pinto was on federally and state‑protected family medical leave when some events occurred and that she was effectively locked out of district systems, which the defense said would have prevented timely completion of some administrative tasks. “Every employee of Cliffside Park is entitled to [family medical leave],” Miss Scolacci said, urging the board to reinstate Pinto with back pay.

The defense also emphasized that Dr. Pinto had objected to district instructions that case managers or principals amend Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) without full due‑process procedures; counsel argued such objections can be a protected activity under the statute the defense referenced in the record. The superintendent disputed the defense’s characterization and said he had heard nothing in the public presentation that would change his decision to issue the nonrenewal.

After the public presentations concluded, board members moved to discuss attorney‑client privileged matters in executive session. A motion to enter executive session carried with multiple recorded ayes on the public record; no public motion to reinstate Dr. Pinto was made before the board closed the public portion. Vic Lapira, who explained the hearing process at the start of the meeting, told attendees a confirming letter about the board’s decision would be sent within three days.

The immediate outcome is that the board entered executive session to deliberate; the public record does not show a motion to reinstate Dr. Pinto in open session. The board’s next procedural steps will depend on any further motions taken during executive session and any formal vote the board records after deliberation.