The Paterson Board of Education was expected to vote Monday night, November 2, on a new five-year employment agreement for Superintendent Dr. Laurie Newell, one day before voters head to the polls on Tuesday to elect new board members. The 5:30 p.m. meeting at 90 Delaware Avenue came after weeks of escalating conflict, including a lawsuit and a state petition both aimed at stopping the vote before it could happen.
Board commissioner Corey Teague and four Paterson residents asked state education officials to postpone the hearing and vote, according to TAPinto Paterson. Teague, along with school board candidates Banita Herndon and Chris Small and community members Khadeejah Jenkins and Megan Binns, filed a petition with the New Jersey Department of Education on Oct. 22 seeking an emergency order, according to northjersey.com, which described the filing as a 31-page petition asking the state Education Department's Office of Controversies and Disputes to delay the special meeting. The state Department of Education transmitted the matter to its Office of Administrative Law on Oct. 27, according to TAPinto's reporting.
The push for a delay didn't stop with the state petition. Teague and Christopher Small also filed a complaint in Passaic County Superior Court on Oct. 30 seeking to prevent the vote and force release of the proposed agreement, per the same TAPinto account. That complaint names the Board of Education, board president Joel Ramirez and board attorney Albert Buglione as defendants, and lists Newell as a party in interest. The filing raises questions about public-records access and the authority used to advance the proposed contract.
What's Actually in the Proposed Contract
The proposal on the table is described by northjersey.com as a four-year, eight-month agreement that would run from November 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031, replacing Newell's existing contract, which is in effect through June 30, 2027. It calls for a 4.15% raise effective July 1, 2027, followed by three annual 3% increases, according to northjersey.com. TAPinto's reporting states the same 4.15% bump would raise her salary to $315,000, with the subsequent 3% increases reportedly bringing her pay to approximately $344,000 by July 2030 — a figure northjersey.com also reported as the salary Newell would reach by July 2030 under the new deal.
Newell currently earns $302,445 for the 2026-27 school year, per TAPinto's reporting, after her salary rose from $285,000 in July 2023 with 2% annual increases, according to the same account. That trajectory traces back to her previous contract, which northjersey.com reported gave her three 2% pay raises; under that earlier deal, 2% annual increases were projected to bring her salary to $302,445 in 2026-27, her fourth year on the job, per northjersey.com's 2023 reporting. For context, the average full-time New Jersey superintendent earned $203,000 during the 2025-26 school year, according to nj.com's analysis of state data, though at least five superintendents statewide earned more than $300,000 and about 80 earned over $250,000 that year, with Paterson's district appearing on nj.com's list of the highest-paid superintendents for 2024-25.
A Contested Paper Trail
Teague said he was not informed about the proposed extension until he was asked whether he would attend the Nov. 2 meeting, per TAPinto's reporting. He argued that the next board session should decide on Newell's contract instead, and said the rush appeared to reflect an agenda being pushed rather than good governance, according to the same account. As of his latest update, Teague said he had not received a court response to the lawsuit.
The petitioners argue the proposed contract has not been sufficiently accessible to the public or the full board, contending that residents and board members lacked sufficient access to the agreement and that the full board was never given an opportunity to authorize the negotiation process before the hearing was announced. They also argue the decision should instead fall to the board taking office after Tuesday's election.
Access to the document itself became a flashpoint. TAPinto's reporting states the district declined to release the proposed agreement, citing an exemption for documents involved in ongoing decision-making, though it did provide Newell's existing employment contract in response to a TAPinto public-records request. An Oct. 1 notice reportedly directed residents to contact the superintendent's office to arrange an in-person appointment beginning Oct. 15 in order to inspect the agreement — a process petitioners argue limits residents' ability to review the deal and participate meaningfully.
The District's Response
The district disputed that the process was rushed or conducted solely by Ramirez, according to TAPinto, and said personnel committee members — who include Ramirez, Hector Nieves, Kenneth Rosado and Della Wilder — expressed interest in extending Newell's contract as early as May or June 2026. The district said the agreement underwent review and consultation in July 2026 and was submitted to the executive county superintendent on July 28, 2026, receiving the required review and approval before the Nov. 2 hearing was scheduled.
The district said it gave notice on Oct. 1, 2026 and made the agreement available for public inspection beginning Oct. 15, arguing that state law requires advance public notice and a hearing but not online posting or advance distribution of the proposed contract. Ramon Rivera, representing the district, asked on Oct. 30 that the petitioners' request to postpone the vote be denied, arguing they had not shown that proceeding with the vote would cause harm that could not be addressed later.
Not everyone on the board can weigh in. Board member Kenneth Simmons said he received concerns about the process from board members, residents and employees, and said some employees were reluctant to speak publicly because they feared retaliation. Simmons, who is barred from participating in discussions or voting on the proposed contract due to a conflict, said the salary figures circulating were accurate to his understanding, though he had not personally reviewed the agreement himself. He said decisions of this significance deserve an open process that lets affected people understand and weigh in before action is taken. Board member Valerie Freeman is also conflicted from participating in discussions, evaluations or comments about Newell's agreement, citing the code of ethics for school board members, and did not express a position on whether the contract should be approved.
Ramirez said he was waiting for advice from the district's legal counsel, according to northjersey.com. Ramirez and other contacted commissioners provided no substantive responses to TAPinto's comment requests before publication. The Paterson school board election is scheduled for the day after the contract vote, adding another layer of urgency to a dispute that has already landed in both a courtroom and a state administrative law office. Under Paterson Board of Education policy, residents attending meetings in person must register upon arrival to take part in public comment, while those joining remotely must register by email at least one hour before the meeting starts, according to Paterson Public Schools.
