The Pelham Board of Education voted unanimously on Sept. 11 to extend Superintendent Dr. Cheryl Champ’s contract by one year to June 2027, with annual renewals after that at the option of her or the board.

Champ’s salary for the current school year will be $280,510, a 2% increase over the previous year, according to the approved amendment to the superintendent’s employment agreement, which is backdated to July. Her four-year pact was set to run through June 30, 2026.

Board President Jackie De Angelis previewed the vote on the contract change in her opening remarks during the trustees’ business meeting. “The development of this amendment involved input from both the prior and current boards,” said De Angelis. “My willingness to extend reflects Dr. Champ’s performance in meeting district goals, hiring a strong cabinet and holding deep expertise in advancing strategic plans and facilities plans.”

The unanimity on the board stood in stark contrast to the last time the trustees dealt with Champ’s contract in 2022, a difference some board members addressed in their comments.

On June 30, 2022, the final day of the then-current board’s year, the trustees voted 4-3 to approve a new four-year deal for the superintendent, with two of the yes votes coming from trustees who were leaving office that day—Leah Tahbaz and John Brice.

Trustees Ian Rowe and Dr. Michael Owen-Michaane voted against the pact, arguing at the time the three newly elected board members—Will Treves, Natalie Marrero and De Angelis—should be allowed to have their say on the contract when they took office the following month. (Trustee Vincent Mazzaro, who was also leaving the board, voted against the agreement, while Trustees Jessica DeDomenico and Sue Bratone Childs, each with a year left to serve, voted for it.)

As a result of the last-minute maneuver, when the new fiscal year began the next day on July 1, 2022, only two members on the board had voted in favor of Champ’s new contract. It was noted at the time the agreement extended Champ’s employment beyond the three-year terms of the three new board members.

‘The Big Scuffle’

Marrero, who was one of those three and is now board vice president, recalled June 2022, saying she wanted people to remember “the big scuffle about that, because three of us were joining the board, and we had absolutely no say on Dr. Champ’s contract.”

“And not that we would have changed or not changed the contract, but we would have loved to have a view,” Marrero said. “And as this time, the contract became available again or up for renewal, we wanted not only the board that was outgoing, but the new board to also have a view and a say, because it was just a fair thing to do. So, I just want to make it very clear this conversation started before the new board. The outgoing board members were on board with this decision, and the new board members, who can speak for themselves, were brought in and explained the contract, and I believe they also were on board with the decision. So, I just want to make it clear that all boards, new board, everybody was together in this decision, and we have discussed this and all have kind of agreed that we want to renew this contract.”

Treves, who also did not get a say in June 2022 after his election in May, said that while the board had previously done three-year contract renewals (except for the four-year deal approved in June 2022), he preferred the rolling one-year extension adopted in the amendment to Champ’s agreement.

“The reason why I think that’s kind of a good concept of just having a one-year extension that sort of auto renews with an out on either side is because, well, you know, continuity of leadership is important,” Treves said. “The makeup of the board does change fairly frequently. Who knows what this board will look like two, three, four, five years from now? And one of the board’s primary responsibilities is the employment of the superintendent. And I generally don’t like making decisions on behalf of future boards that remove their optionality. So, I think that this structure is good because it gives some level of flexibility for future boards, whoever they may be in the future, while retaining continuity of our leadership.”

Residency Requirements

The trustees heard a presentation from Suzanne Volpe, an attorney who advises school districts, on residency requirements and the results of last year’s investigations into students who might not live in the school district.

“For the 2023-2024 school year, the district investigator and the district conducted 23 total investigations,” said Volpe. The sources who called for the inquiries were “staff or an administrator [for 19 investigations], one landlord, one resident and two were triggered by the investigator. The outcomes of those investigations were that out of a total of 23 investigations, four individuals were confirmed residents, 13 non-residents, one homeless and displaced, and five incomplete, pending or unfounded.”

During the public comment portion of the meeting, resident Steven Shekane said, “The issue of non-resident students and families has been discussed ever since I moved to Pelham 11 years ago. As you know, we pay some of the highest property taxes in the entire nation, and almost two-thirds of the property taxes go to the school district. So, it’s disturbing when families are defrauding the school district and taxpayers and stealing services by educating their children here when they’re not supposed to.”

None of the board members responded to the comment.

At the beginning of the board meeting, De Angelis addressed the dispute over Julianne’s Playground, a school district property where the Village of Pelham wants to build underwater tanks and above ground pumps as part of a major storm sewer project. The night before (Sept 10), the Village of Pelham Board of Trustees took the final legal step to condemn portions of Julianne’s using its power of eminent domain.

De Angelis restated the district’s opposition to granting an easement to the village for the project—a step school trustees rejected in February.

The Spirit of Collaboration

“The Village of Pelham chose to pursue eminent domain, a legal process requiring appropriate legal counsel for the district,” De Angelis said. “We still hope to transfer the property through a reasonable settlement agreement and without a lengthy legal proceeding. I spoke with our attorney today, and we might not have an update for a few more weeks as the Village of Pelham is approaching the deadline for filing the eminent domain proceeding with the court.”

From her comments, it wasn’t clear if the school board or the district’s special counsel in the case knew the village had already acted on Sept. 10. The school system can seek judicial review of the decision no later than 30 days after it is served with the condemnation papers and two public notices on it have been published in a newspaper. Appeals go directly to the appellate division of state court in Brooklyn.

De Angeles also addressed work the Village of Pelham Manor needs to do under school district property as part of the Manor’s separate storm sewer project. Under Glover Field, a sanitary sewer duct runs through a storm water pipe, an obstruction that causes flooding in the Wolfs Lane area during major storms.

De Angelis said she had spoken that day with Village of Pelham Manor Mayor Jennifer Monachino Lapey on the Glover issue. “I was assured that the school district and board of education will continue to be involved in planning efforts for this potential project that requires guidance from a county agency, the DEF, the department of environmental facilities, because the [one sewer] pipe serves three municipalities while being located on school district property,” De Angelis said. “Let’s please approach these important topics in the spirit of collaboration.”

• The Pelham Examiner reports on education from Kindergarten musicals to board of ed meetings. Give now to support the nonprofit community newspaper that covers Pelham schools.