The Crack Team at SBSB has received a copy of the complaint filed against new District 7 superintendent Roberto Padilla and the Newburgh Enlarged City School District. Click this link to read the entire complaint.
But some highlights, or rather, the lowlights, of the complaint will be shared and deciphered here. But let's set the scene from the complaint...
In or about early June 2021, Defendant Padilla sent out a District wide announcement encouraging all administrators and teachers to attend ASU+GSV Summit (the "Conference"), scheduled for August 9 to 11, 2021 in San Diego. In an email from Defendant Padilla's office to the District advertising the Conference, it was described as, "one of the premier learning summits in the country," stating that applications were handled on a first come, first served basis. Plaintiffs separately submitted an interest form, each explaining how the Conference aligned with their school's goals and instructional focus, and why their attendance would add value to Newburgh.
Plaintiffs both were selected to attend the Conference, and submitted the conference costs of $3,000 which were covered by Newburgh, through their budgets. 32. Upon information and belief, approximately seven (7) District employees attended the Conference. Some of those who attended were also old friends of Defendant Padilla. 33. Upon information and belief, most of the Newburgh attendees stayed at the hotel designated for the Conference, the Marriott Marquis hotel, while Defendant Padilla stayed at a different hotel
Three thousand times 7 people attending is $21k. Did that include meals and the stay at the exclusive Marriott Marquis?
But here comes something strange...
Plaintiffs received very little communication from Newburgh about what they could expect at the Conference, and the objectives of their attendance for Newburgh. There was no orientation for the Newburgh attendees, and no conversation about how to make the most out of their attendance by, for example, planning who would attend which of the over forty (40) daily events offered at the Conference. Plaintiffs were discouraged by the lack of interest in the Conference demonstrated by Defendant Padilla before and during the event
Was this a true trip for educational purposes or was it just an excuse to spend other people's money and/or do some skirt chasing?
The night of August 8th, Plaintiffs arrived at a Brazilian steakhouse in San Diego's Gas Light District asking for "AJ," since Defendant Padilla told them the reservation was under that name. At the restaurant, Plaintiffs were surprised to find that "AJ" was the CEO of Innovare, an Ed Tech company that named Defendant Padilla to its Advisory Board in March 2021, and was planning to work with the District. Plaintiffs were confused that Innovare was hosting their group for dinner, and did not understand what connection Innovare had to Newburgh. It appeared as though Defendant Padilla had a close relationship with the Company, but no explanation was provided to the Newburgh group about Innovare's offerings, or why they were being taken to dinner by the Company
Several takeaways here. Should Roberto Padilla be on an advisory board that the Newburgh schools might be doing business with? And who paid for this dinner? If it was AJ is this permissible under NYS law? And if there were to be some business done between Innovare and Newburgh would it not be more feasible and ethical for Innovare to come to Newburgh? AJ could have splurged at the Denny's on Route 300 instead of the big bucks at the steakhouse.
The following night, August 9, 2021, the Newburgh attendees gathered at a restaurant where Defendant Padilla had told them to meet. Once there, they were surprised to find that this dinner was sponsored by Rethink Ed, another Ed Tech company. 44. Diana Frezza, an Executive Vice President at Rethink Ed, was ordering food and buckets of sangria for the Newburgh team. Plaintiffs engaged her in conversation and learned who she was, but not why Newburgh was being taken out to dinner. At the end of the dinner, Plaintiffs returned to their hotel.
Drinking with subordinates is never a good idea. People can get stupid.
So let's turn our attention to some of the proclivities that Roberto Padilla has with women.
XXXX was sitting on a couch alone when Defendant Padilla sat down right next to her, despite there being other seats available. Defendant Padilla sat on her right side, putting his arm around XXXX, and rubbing his knee against her knee. Padilla had been drinking whiskey cocktails throughout the evening. He appeared intoxicated and was touching her inappropriately. XXXX felt uncomfortable and scared.
Not cool. One is a supervisor, the other person, a subordinate. Fraternizing with your subordinates is not good and if it has to happen being infused with alcohol is not a good idea. And geez, what is wrong with just having a beer or two?
Defendant Padilla appeared to grow increasingly intoxicated as the evening continued. Defendant Padilla began commenting on the couple (a male and female) romantically sitting on the couch across from them, stating "we're going to be sociologists." Padilla commented that he and XXXXX were "cock blocking" the couple, meaning their presence was preventing the couple from engaging in sexual activity. Padilla then went on to make sexually explicit noises, orating "a little radio show," creating his own description of the couple's public displays of affection. Padilla then began hypothesizing as to the likelihood that the man would "get lucky" that night.
Defendant Padilla scooted his body towards the front of the couch so his foot was touching Plaintiff XXXXXX's foot. Defendant Padilla then began running his foot across Plaintiff XXXXXX's foot. Plaintiff XXXXXXs legs were crossed at the knee, and Defendant Padilla kicked her foot which made her legs uncross. Plaintiff XXXXXXwas aghast, realizing that her boss was suggestively touching her.Defendant Padilla then started talking about XXXXX's tattoo, and he touched her back, slowly tracing his finger over the image of a bird that is part of the tattoo, commenting on the birds "big red ass." 56. XXXX was horrified by Defendant Padilla's comment and by his inappropriate touching of her back. The bottom of the bird in XXXXX's tattoo was not visible, and the bird is dark grey, not red.
And this is the man that is to lead the students, the community, and the teachers of District 7? A man that has no qualms about acting inappropriately with female subordinates. A man who can not control his drinking? A man that appears to have no ethical standards either with subordinates or companies that Newburgh schools do business with?
Can the the stakeholders of District 7 expect the kind of hijinks that Roberto Padilla exhibited in San Diego? My son is in a frat and everything I just read in the complaint seems right out of a frat house full of twenty somethings.
District 7 deserves way better.
