The Hudson County Schools of Technology board voted not to renew Superintendent of Schools Amy Lin-Rodriguez’s contract, though they left the door open to revisit the subject, as fallout from Board Secretary Joey Muniz’s lawsuit lingers.
By John Heinis/Hudson County View
After Board Counsel Jonathan Busch noted that Muniz had waived his Rice notice, which means any matters involving his employment could be discussed publicly, before Trustee Hector Zulueta read a January 13th letter from Stephen Edelstein, counsel to Muniz.
“On November 25th, 2024, Mr. Muniz was abruptly suspended from his tenured position at the Hudson County Schools of Technology by actions from the highly compromised superintendent, [Amy] Lin-Rodriguez for comments that he flatly denies he ever made,” Zulueta began.
“Then, on December 12th, 2024, after Muniz filed a complaint in superior court, which details his history with Mrs. Lin, after she herself had been suspended, the HCST Board of Education compounded the damage to Mr. Muniz by ratifying the suspension without any basis to do so and without any appropriate CSA recommendation …”
Muniz, also a longtime political operative from North Bergen, filed an explosive lawsuit on December 6th alleging an 18-year affair with Lin-Rodriguez in light of his suspension, as HCV first reported.
At the December 12th HCST BOE meeting, the board voted to appoint Trustee Joe Cossolini as the acting secretary and Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluations Dr. Joseph Sirangelo the acting superintendent of schools.
Six days later, Muniz filed an amended complaint against the HCST and each trustee except Zulueta (he voted against ratifying his suspension) alleging that Sirangelo did not have the authority to make recommendations since he was not yet the acting superintendent.
In the aforementioned letter to Busch, Edelstein declares that the HCST has “acted with absolute disregard for any of Mr. Muniz’s rights” and demanded that he be reinstated at last night’s meeting.
He also said that in the seven weeks following the suspension, no one had been interviewed as part of the school’s investigation.
Upon further questioning from Zulueta, Busch said the litigation is “being handled as expeditiously as possible” and could not say much more without going into closed session.
Zulueta then made a motion to go into closed session, which Trustee Monica Fundora, also a Guttenberg councilwoman, seconded. The motion passed unanimously (8-0).
After about a half hour, the board reconvened in open session where they left off, with Zulueta asking Busch if the investigation had commenced (it has) and how many people had been interviewed (he declined to comment on an ongoing investigation).
Busch said the investigation would conclude “as soon as it possibly can without jeopardizing the investigation,” which is “highly confidential.”
Shortly thereafter, Busch read his written response to Edelstein from Wednesday into the record.
“This correspondence, along with others, written by you, your partner, Mark Tabakin, and Mr. Muniz have been inappropriately sent by Mr. Muniz himself to members of the board since the suspension on November 25th, 2024,” he asserted.
“Specifically, I understand that he has sent approximately 10 emails to various board members regarding matters related to his employment and has attempted to contact at least one board member by telephone during this time.”
He further stated that in his suspension letter, Muniz was told not to engage in any official school board business with members of the board and is prohibited from contacting board members and employees about his employment until this matter is resolved.
“Please advise Mr. Muniz that failure to comply with the directives set forth in the suspension letter and this correspondence could constitute further evidence of his insubordination, which may result in disciplinary action …”
Busch noted that the board would be voting on a resolution to that effect following the recommendation of the personnel committee. He also said that the notion that Muniz’s due process and rights had been ignored “is wholly without merit.”
During public comment, Edelstein said that the only allegation of substance is whether or not Muniz used profane and/or inappropriate language in a one-on-one conversation with Lin-Rodriguez and anything further would simply be “a fishing expedition.”
“There are only two people who were party to the event, it’s not gonna take Sherlock Holmes to get to the bottom of that story, unless what’s actually going on, and I’ve been around school boards as long as the next guy, is a fishing expedition to see if there’s some kind of chum that can be brought to the surface.”
He also said the resolution about hindering Muniz’s ability to speak with board members was unconstitutional, exclaiming that he was allowed to speak to whoever he wants as long as it wasn’t related to the pending litigation.
Before any voting commenced, Busch responded in kind.
“This ‘its not gonna take Sherlock Holmes comment,’ this investigation became much more substantial upon the filing of a complaint by Mr. Muniz about a week-and-a-half after the initial allegations came to our attention,” he replied.
“It is a very complex investigation, it’s something that involves the need to speak to a number of people and just because it’s been alleged that one incident is what brought us to investigation, doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s only two people to discuss.”
Around that time, Zulueta made a motion to reinstate Muniz, which was seconded by Fundora, however it failed 7-2, with only the sponsors voting yes.
That was the same tally to pass the measure barring Muniz from communicating with the board and school employees.
While the matter didn’t get even a moment of discussion during the roughly hour-long meeting, the board voted unanimously (9-0) not to renew Lin-Rodriguez’s contract.
Her “Employment Contract due to expire on June 30, 2025 shall not be renewed at this time,” reserving “the right to reconsider this decision at a later date,” the resolution says.
Come on ! Official Business ? For a No-Low-Show job ? How about all the days Jojoe was out of the office ripping off the tax-payer’s funded employment? If the investigation is worth it’s salt, how many days did he actually go to the office in the last 5 years?
These no show gigs are crimes to the state but nothing ever happens. Long live the lawsuit.