I pledge of allegiance to the flag oh yeah of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Ronus I just need to read a quick statement if I may. The New Jersey open public's
meetings law is enacted to ensure the rights of the public to have advanced notice of and attend the meeting of public bodies of which any business affecting their interest is discussed or acted upon. In accordance with the provision of this act plus I talk board of ed notice of this meeting to be published by having the date time and
date time and place thereof posted in the office of the board of ed on July 6, 2026 and notice posted to the cliffside park board of ed website July 6, 2026. This is an official meeting. I'd like to take the role if I may. Mr. Rifus. Uh, Mrs. Abru
>> here. >> Mr. Capano >> here. >> Mrs. Fredo, let's see. Mrs. >> Mr. Nadru, >> Mr. Nage >> here. >> Dr. Prianiano >> here. >> Mr. Rancourt >> here.
>> Mr. Russo, I don't see. Mr. Teraki, I don't see. Mr. Yanzi >> here. >> Okay. Mr. Rus. Thank you, Mr. Afano. Thank you, Board of Education members. Um, at this time, I'm going to turn it over to Vic Lapira
um to address the members of the audience as well as the board of education. >> Sure. Thanks. And so, um, I just want to say for the record, I know that one of the attorneys is, uh, step that side for a second. Um, but this is a uh what they
refer to as a Donaldson hearing uh for Miss Charlie Pinto who was not renewed uh for the succeeding school year for this 2627 school year. The term hearing is a little bit of a misnumber. It's really an informal appearance. Normally
these are conducted in closed executive session. Just going over the the the details. So normally these are conducted in closed uh executive session but we always uh have to give the right to the staff member to conduct it in open um she has
elected to do that so that's fine and um what we'll do tonight very briefly um the superintendent will just kind of reiterate the the reasons for the non-renewal as more specifically detailed in the statement of reasons that we provided to Miss Pinto. After
that, we're going to turn it over to you um to make a presentation. We typically find that people don't need more than 15 to 30 minutes. That's kind of the time period that we've set aside for this um to hear from you as to why um you believe Miss Pinto should be reinstated
her position. It's not an adversarial position uh proceeding. There's no cross-examination. We don't do any of that. We don't put people under oath. Um it's just really an opportunity to make your uh position known. And so we'll listen to that. Um once you're done,
[clears throat] then it goes uh back to the board. The board can do any number of things at that point in time. [clears throat] If there's no motion to reinstate, then she will be deemed non-renewed. Um you'll get a letter confirming that within 3 days. You
whether you want to stay for that portion of the meeting or not, it's up to you. It's optional. Um the board could decide ultimately maybe one board member makes a motion, it's not seconded. If that happens, also not renewed. Um and there's a possibility that two people want to have a motion
and there's a vote and if she doesn't get the requisite number of votes, which um here is the majority of the full board, which because there are 10 members, it's six. She doesn't get six votes, then she wouldn't be renewed. Um or theoretically she [clears throat] could get six or more votes to be
renewed and that could happen. But there's no obligation to even make the motion. I just say that that's a possibility. I've been through lots of these and they're they're always different. But um one way or the other a determination will be made um or or you
know no determination um to reinstate is made and in that situation we'll let you know and then you can proceed accordingly at that point. Um so any questions before I kind of turn it over to the superintendent? >> No. Okay. Great. All right. So um we'll have Mr. Rinfus just kind of uh briefly
detail the reasons why um he made his decision not to renew Mr. Pinto. >> Sure. Thank you uh Mr. Lepira. Um on June 26th we sent a letter to Miss Charlene Pinto um stating the different reasons for non-renewal. Um this was
purely job performancebased. Um there were a number of areas where we felt that uh Miss Pinto was uh deficient and not living up to uh the standards of the cliffside cardboard of education. Uh the first reason focused on observations that were not complete uh completed. We
had about 50 observations that Charlene was supposed to complete that were not completed. In addition to the observations, there were self assessments by members of the child study team, professional development plans um um and documentation logs that
were not completed by um members in her department. Um Charlene also deleted and restricted access to special education documentation that members of the child study team and related services uh rely heavily on. These are test scores, um,
dates, um, and other information that are extremely important to all members of the child study team as well as members of the entire special education department. Um, Mrs. Pinto also refused to meet with myself and Mrs. Calibris to discuss testing accommodations for uh,
state testing that was coming up in April and May. In 2024 2025, Mrs. [snorts] Pinto did not complete a self-evaluation for herself, a professional development plan, or submit a documentation log. These are mandated
by the district. These were to be completed by all district administrators, and Charlene Pinto did not submit any of those. Um, Mrs. Pinto was also nonresponsive for almost 2 weeks after various emails, text messages, and phone calls were made to
her. Those were in the early weeks of March. Uh, Mrs. Pinto also hired a non-certified teacher and placed her on the salary guide. Um, in addition to that, she also promised a current teacher that we have a related service
provider position. Um, and finally, uh, Mrs. Pinto sent an email to the child study team, [snorts] um, saying that the district passed, um, indicator 11, which is a big part of the New Jersey Department of Education special
education profile. Uh we received a notice a few months ago that we did not um pass that indicator. Um so um the various congratulatory emails that went back to Mrs. Pinto for finally passing that in indicator um turned out to be
not true. Um so as you can see this was purely job performance. This was not just an isolated incident. This was not just a couple incidents. there were a number of areas where we as a district felt that we can do better. So those are the reasons for issuing the non-renewal.
>> Okay. Uh thank you. So again, we're going to turn it over to you uh just to hear from you. Um I do uh acknowledge that we we did receive um a u a nine-page response to that with some exhibits. And so I think that you
before we started you mentioned that that was in the record. So we we have that um as well, but I want to turn it over to you and give you the time, you know, the next 15 to 30 minutes to explain why you think that the um the MO should be. >> Good evening.
>> How's everybody today? >> Doing well, thank you. [laughter] >> Okay. I'm Steven Drummond with the law firm in Drummond School. This is my law partner, Mr. Kalachi, and we appear here on behalf of Dr. Pinto. First, I want to take some time to thank you for your
time. And I want to impress upon you the reason respectfully why you have the position that you have. Cuz there comes a point that you're entrusted with responsibility of making sure that those who are ultimately in charge is simply
doing the right thing. I want to establish to you that the whole purpose of your position is to check the superintendent. The oath that you took is to check the superintendent. Doesn't matter whether you like the superintendent or not, you don't hate
the superintendent. The oath that you took requires you to check the decisions you're making of those in power. The rule wouldn't work if we didn't have a system in place to check those that are
in power. So, we submitted a nine-page response and I trust that each of you in taking your role seriously have had the opportunity to carefully read through that. I'm a trial lawyer. It wouldn't take me long to persuade six
reasonable jurors to point out that what is said and the reason that's being offered is pretextual. It's on its face pretextual. So, I trust you have had the opportunity to do so. One of the simple question that I
respectfully submitt should ask is if this person was such a bad employee, when did you not see that coming? You mean to tell me after she took some time off from work to take care of her mom that suddenly you came to realize
she's locked out of her computer? Does that survive your common sense, ladies and gentlemen? is that now she's been there for a number of years, never received an adverse evaluation. So when those in power suddenly say, "Well, you took some time off. You're locked
out of the system and you locked us out of the system." This is the first time that that has happened since this person has been there. I urge you to read through this document very carefully. And I go back to what I said to you before. It wouldn't take me a long time to convince six jurors.
So when I come to these meetings and in many ways I have a feeling that some things are routinely done or routinely done and routinely done. I urge you to look beyond the routine. Look to the record that's before you. Read it carefully because the decision
you're making is not just about anybody. This is Dr. Pinto. She's not Charlie. She's not Miss Pinto. She's Dr. Pinto. So it took a long time to get that title. No more than I'm Mr. the drumman, an attorney Drummond, cuz it took a long
time to attain that title. And so, here's someone who's on staff who cares about students and has worked and has never received a bad evaluation until she took some time off. Well, was she locked out of the system? Because that's a simple question and the superintendent
could answer that because there's email communication that's in the record before you indicating that she's locked out of the system. So if she's locked out of the system, there is no way she could go in there and perform the duties that she's obligated to do because she's locked out of the system. Does it stand
to reason that someone like Dr. Pinter would refuse to meet with a superintendent all of a sudden? She said, "I don't want to meet with you." Does that stand to your reason? Well, she's off as she indicated trying to take care of an alien mom. That's the reason. Then she asked for
representation because at that stage of the proceedings, things have gotten adversarial. the email communication documents that and that is a part of the record. So when she asked to the superintendent asked to meet she says I want to meet but I want to meet with my
advisors and my representation present. That's not refusing to meet. That's saying the system has gotten to the place where lawyers are now going to be involved and I want to make sure that my interest is protected. Here's a critical point.
Dr. to ask for this meeting to be public. Not because us the lawyers asked what she wants it to be public. How many people think of your life experience, your common sense, all you've been through throughout this journey. How many times that you've engaged in
something or accused of something to the point where you receive termination that you want the world to know about it? She could ask for this meeting private. I could tell you I have no interest in making this thing public. I don't think coconut,
but the client wants it. So, you have to be deferred to the client. How many people want their lack of better term dirty laundry aired in public unless they are standing on a good faith ground? There are there's a ninepage
correspondence to you. I respectfully ask you to take it seriously. Read through it. One of the points that's pointed out I think it's reason number three. Reason number three for termination on its face defies CIFA.
Reason number three says we wanted you to come back to do something. And she says I have a good faith basis upon which I will not subscribe to reason number three. It's protected by CIFA. So even in the letter that's submitted to her explaining the reasons why she
should be terminated on its face standing alone without her giving any response you could argue before a reasonable mind jurist to say if an employee has a good faith basis upon which they say no I'm not going to do
that is protected by CIFA because SEA is one of those things that's designed for the checks and balances of our society. I have traveled from a little distance to get here, but I hope I didn't do do so out of matter of routine. I do so on a firm
belief that you are reason-minded people, that you take your oath seriously. And despite the fact that you may know the superintendent and you're meeting me for the first time, I stand persuaded on a simple belief and principle that most people are good people. Most people take their oath
seriously and most people seek to do the right thing. I am going to go to my grave with that persuasion. Most people are good people. Most people take their oath seriously and most people seek to do the right thing. I stand on that belief.
I stand on that belief. I am urging you to check the reasons profered for why she should be terminated and not be renewed and look at the better investment provided. Really carefully.
And I would make a fair suggestion. Um I think you could do it without a superintendent present. She could talk because as life would have it, most people might not want to state your objection to
someone in their presence. But even caucus outside of him being there and talk candidly about how you feel and read the record carefully and so that when you make a decision, you could sleep well. know that you did the right thing. You took your oath seriously and
you did that which you're committed to do. I believe most people are good. Most people are reasonable and most people try to do the right thing. If you read the reasons offered for her termination and you read carefully the response
provided, I respectfully submit you will see that is pretext. She has never received a bad evaluation. How many people have gone to work and worked for a number of years and have never received a bad evaluation? Then
suddenly number of reasons offered for termination is after she asked for some time off to go take care of the early mom. She locked out us out of the system. How does that even make sense? If you have questions for me, I'd love
to address them, but I don't want to just keep repeating myself other than standing on a simple principle. Most people are good. Most people do the right thing and most people take their old seriously. I have read through the superintendent's explanation and the other point I want
to make is this. Look, on June 26, 2026, the superintendent sent out a response. Now, lawyers, we try to be thorough. We try to take a lot of time to respond. the fact that within a very short period
of time, the same day, June 26, 2026, a response was submitted. A thorough response tells you that we didn't have to spend a lot of time.
We didn't have to take 24 hours. We didn't have to take 3 weeks. We didn't have to take 10 days. We were able to respond to it the very same day in a timely fashion. and you now have your life experience. You now have your common sense. How
often does that happen? That someone based upon a explanation of why someone was terminated was able to in a timely fashion almost off the top of the head come back with a response demonstrating that everything that's offered is
pretextual. This is where you come in. This is where this moment is your moment to say, "Wait a second. If you give an explanation and I I ask the question this way, how long did it take him to come up with the reasons as to why she was terminated? I would respectfully
submit to you it took longer than it took to respond to. That alone should tell you something. That alone should cause you to say, "Wait a second." That is too quick a turnaround. if there was something there within a short time
period, a nine-page response to what is given as the explanation as to why I will she made an objection to the IEP as to why she wouldn't follow it and within 4
days later um she got a nonrenewal This is the part where I I I want to spend a little time on the third reasons as I said refuse to meet. The response says this reason inverts the truth.
What the statement characterizes as Miss Pinker's opinion, which appeared to be an AI generated response was in fact her legally correct written objection to a directed by assistant superintendent Cavarice instructing principles to
quote, "Let the respective case manager amend the IEP if the student does not need the accommodations." Miss Pinker advised Superintendent Rick that the directive was incorrect and in direct violation of New Jersey code um
and not legal, explaining IEPs cannot be changed unilaterally by a principal or case manager simply because they believe a student no longer needs an accommodation. So that alone she happens to be right on it. But even if she was incorrect on it,
as long as she had a good faith basis as to why she will not change the IEP, that is protected by Sitha. And that's why on its face, it became easy to respond to. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm asking you to take some time and deliberate upon the
serious decision that you have to make. I mentioned the following not for sympathy, but we live in this economy. We all live in this economy. People have families to support. People have responsibilities. Here's an employee that has dedicated a number of years of
her life working in this community. And surreptitiously, all of that is gone. This is why you're here. Because from time to time, those that are in power make the wrong decision. This is why you're here. This is the
moment why you took the oath to make sure that at the end of the day those that are in power can be checked. This is the whole foundation of this great country the whole checks and balance that we learned from the early stages of school. This is a municipal level of the
checks and balances that's on our government and this is why you're here. I don't say that to your heartstring. I say that to remind you respectfully of the application and the oath that you took. If you're here and you didn't read it
and you're going to vote against her, then respectfully that's simply not living up to the responsibility and the oath that you took. If you're here and you didn't deliberate on it and you're going to be a performant decision maker, then that's giving right in to the notion of no checks and balance on those
that are in power. But I will be satisfied and I frankly our system of government should be satisfied if we can live with the idea that you have deliberated on what you have to do and you took it seriously without favor for
anyone and you wrestled with it looking at the rights and wrongs of it and you follow your conscience and you follow your oath and you vote accordingly. If you do that then that's the way it should be done. But if you find yourself saying, "Okay, the superintendent make a recommendation. We've been here before.
This is balancing. I don't even know what a balance she hearing is. I'm just going to go along because the superintendent tell that is exactly the problem. Don't be that person. Don't be that person. Be the person that see those that are in
power holding up to their responsibility to being in power. Because if we have anything else, the whole system falls apart. So you don't know me. I'm just meeting you. But I'm believing that you take your oath seriously and I'm believing that you will look at the
evidence and you'll vote your conscience based upon the evidence and the evidence only. >> Yes. >> Just briefly, thank you again for all of your time here tonight and we appreciate the opportunity to come before you. Just want to go back and clarify two very
important things. When we talk about Dr. Pinto being on leave to take care of her mother. This is federally and state protected family medical leave that everybody is entitled to. Every employee
of Cliffside Park is entitled to Cliffside Park granted that leave. God bless you. It's true. Thank you. [snorts] It's true. Every employee is entitled to that. She exercised her right to that. And somehow during that time of federally and state protected
family medical leave, she was threatened that she abandoned her job. Other employees and the documents of Cliffside Park will support have taken that leave for much, much longer time, months on end, way longer than Dr. Pinto, and
never received the phone call being threatened that he or she abandon his or her job as was done in this case. again a pretext for the real reason why the superintendent wishes to terminate Dr. Pinto because again she made her
objection to what the manner in which Cliffside Park wanted to unilaterally decide the IEP program of its students. This is special education for its students. It's not for Cliffside Park to
determine. There is a whole process. The student is entitled to that due process. Special education therapists and teachers and programmers have to come before and decide what is the correct IEP program for each individual student.
And when she objects to what the site park wanted to do, 4 days later, she got a notice of non-renewal. All of a sudden, now she has poor work performance. That is the pretext for the unlawful retaliation that is going on here. And if you sign off on the superintendent's decision, you are
contributing to that unlawful retaliation. And we implore you not to do that. Reinstate Dr. Pinto. Reinstate her immediately with all back pay. Thank you. >> In closing, I stand on what I say. Most people are good. Most people do the
right thing and most people live up to their oath. And I'm confident that you will. I rest believing that you'll look through the evidence, the the nine-page document that was provided in response that was provided almost contemporaneously in response and you
will make a ruling and determination that Dr. Pinter should be reinstated. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, so that concludes this portion of the uh hearing. Um, I don't know if the superintendent has
anything uh to say and then and then the board will make a determination as to whether it needs to deliberate over this at all um or make a motion or any of that, but turn it over to you. >> Sure. Thank you. Um uh thank you for speaking on uh behalf of uh Mrs. Pinto.
Um there was nothing that I heard that would lead me to change my decision. Um there was a lot that I would refute um in what was just said. Um but we will save that for another time. Um but there
again was nothing um that I heard that was um that would change my decision for a non-renewal. >> Um members have any questions? thoughts about proceeding at this time. >> Could be for the attorneys or it could
be for me. Whatever. It was sent to um it was sent to the board care board secretary business administrator and I believe Tyler I was copying you a copy of this
copy of that. Yeah. Got it. >> Same. I thought it was sent out. That's what I looked at. >> Can I make a motion for us to go into executive session >> uh to discuss matters that are within
the attorney client privilege? Yes. To discuss Miss Pinto. No. But but if there are matters separate and apart from that that are like attorney client. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I I think we we'd like to go into executive session with you, Vic, and and the board. That's possible.
>> Yep. >> You take it from there. So that's a second break. >> That would be a motion. >> Yeah. Correct. And if it's okay, I'm not quite sure. Can we use the executive senate chambers, please? >> All in favor? >> I
>> I Yes. >> If they I I think I one more asked for a cop response. Then maybe I have no copy that I'll I'll tender. I think it's that important. Um, I don't know if I mean I I have the copy in front of me, but I don't know if if you want to give us a
copy, that's fine. >> Yeah. >> Mine is highlighted, but I don't I don't mind. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. You want to make copies? >> Yeah, if you want. Sure.
>> Okay. We're going to go to the uh Yes. I need my Yep. Why don't you sit here? >> You want to sit here? >> No. Okay. >> You're okay. >> I'll sit down here. >> We're almost done anyway, right? >> Yeah. Sit. Sit right here. I can sit
[clears throat] here. You sit right here. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> I got my surgery. It's okay. I'll be walking by July. >> Just a Are we good to
>> Yeah, I think we have everybody. Yep. Yep. Okay. A motion to open the uh public session. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Rifles. >> Would anyone like to make a motion to
reinstate Miss Pento? Dr. That being said, um someone to make a motion to close. >> I'll make a motion to close the meeting. Second. So move. >> All in favor? >> I I
very good. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you.