According to a statement issued by the New Rochelle Board of Education, former Trinity Assistant Principal Nadine Pacheco submitted her resignation on October 14th. The resignation was formally accepted by board on November 1st under Resolution 12-153-4. That same night there was a second resolution, No. 12-153-14 under which Pacheco was to be appointed a teacher at Trinity at a salary of $114,165, effective October 17th. That same resolution also contained an appointment to Interim Teacher for Nicole Mussolini. The resolution was tabled.
On November 3rd, after a Trinity PTA meeting met in an illegal “emergency executive session” and passed Resolution 12-153-4 appointing Nicole Mussolini as Interim Teacher. No such resolution was ever passed for Pacheco.
If Pacheco resigned on October 14th, and her resignation was accepted by the board on November 1st, and the district policy requires competitive job openings and no such job openings were ever announced and no such resolution appointing Pacheco to any particular position has been approved by the board then on what basis is Pacheco being paid? Why is she still listed as a teacher at Trinity Elementary School when she is now working directly for Assistant Superintendent Dr. Jeffrey Korostoff, presumably over at City Hall?
We already know that the district was illegally paying Pacheco for the last four years and now, it appears, they continue to pay her illegally.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I have enough to cover at tonight’s meeting on the Martinez matter so perhaps a reader will be so kind as to show up and read the above portion of this article to the board and request a written response, as is their policy when a member of the public asks a question of the board.
Readers will recall Resolution 12-153-4, like the district statement on Pacheco’s resignation, falsely stated that the resignation was submitted for “personal reasons” when, in fact, it was because she did not have an administrative license during the entire time she worked as an administrator in New Rochelle and was thus illegally employed by the district in violation of Article 61 Section 3009. At the meeting I objected to the resolution on the grounds that it contained a statement that the board knew to be false. The resolution was then amended to strike the phrase “for personal reasons”.