Painesville School Board Meeting: Riverside Superintendent Termination Hearing, Buckeye Building Project, Union Injunction

PAINESVILLE TOWNSHIP, Ohio – Dozens of parents, teachers and community members have packed recent Riverside Local Schools board meetings as a lame-duck majority presses ahead with the Riverside superintendent termination hearing against Superintendent Christopher “Chris” Rateno, while simultaneously battling over a major building project and a multimillion‑dollar fund transfer opposed by the teachers union.

Newly elected board members and much of the public say the outgoing majority is rushing a personal vendetta weeks before leaving office. The current board insists it is following policy and acting in the district’s best interest.

Superintendent Faces January Termination Hearing

The current Riverside Board of Education has formally set a Riverside superintendent termination hearing for 9 a.m. on Jan. 4 in the district’s board conference room. The hearing will be held before a referee under Ohio law, a required step before any final decision on firing a superintendent.

The process began in late November, when a 3–1 board majority voted at a special meeting to issue a pre‑discipline, pre‑termination conference demand to Rateno. That vote was added on a paper agenda shortly before the meeting and came after a closed‑door executive session.

At a Dec. 4 special meeting, the same majority:

• Declared its intent not to reemploy Rateno
• Declared its intent to consider termination of his contract
• Directed the district to file a misconduct report with the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce

Those votes were again 3–1, with Board President Scott Fishel, Dennis Keeney and Denise Brewster in favor and Lori Krenisky opposed. Board member Belinda Grassi was absent.

Rateno was later placed on suspension without pay, pending the outcome of the process. Under state law, he can demand a hearing before the board or a referee, and the board must wait a set period after notice before taking any final action.

Board Releases Lengthy List of Allegations

For days after the early votes, board leaders refused to spell out why they were seeking to remove Rateno, citing legal advice and directing reporters to public‑records requests. That secrecy fueled public anger and accusations of a “witch hunt.”

Under mounting pressure, Fishel used a Dec. 10 special meeting to publicly read a lengthy resolution titled something akin to a “Resolution to Declare Intention to Consider the Termination of Contract with Full Specification of the Grounds for Such Consideration.” The document, described as running through 72 allegations, is available as a public record through the district treasurer’s office.

Key claims outlined by the board include:

• Unsatisfactory evaluations

  • Board‑driven performance reviews allegedly scored Rateno around 61% for 2023–24 and 60% for 2024–25.
  • The resolution asserts his services are “unsatisfactory,” that he has been notified of concerns, offered chances to improve and still remains unsatisfactory.

• Buckeye Building Project and bond financing disputes

  • The board accuses Rateno of a “deliberate attempt to sabotage the will of the board” regarding the Buckeye Building Project, a major facilities initiative.
  • It alleges he had improper communications with stakeholders and with the district’s former municipal advisor Sudsina & Associates, contributing to the firm’s resignation and undermining formal board actions on borrowing and certificates of participation.
  • The municipal advisor’s resignation letter, read aloud at a prior meeting, said the planned financing structure “may not be in the district’s best interest” and announced the firm was stepping away from the transaction.

• Alleged Sunshine Law and board policy violations

  • A focal point is a Nov. 8 special meeting called by Grassi and Krenisky.
  • With the other three members absent, no quorum was present. On advice from counsel, Grassi and Krenisky were told to leave to avoid Sunshine Law issues, and the event was reframed as a community listening session without current board members present.
  • Rateno arranged for the session to be recorded and posted to the district’s YouTube channel.
  • The board now characterizes that gathering as a “sham board meeting” aimed at undoing prior formal Buckeye project decisions and claims those actions violated both Ohio’s open‑meetings statutes and district policy.

• Broad conduct and character language
  The resolution layers on sweeping statements that Rateno allegedly failed to:

  • Maintain “unquestionably high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality and professional conduct”
  • Uphold the “proper performance of school business and administration”
  • Meet “high standards” in working relationships and professional leadership

  It further asserts that his actions amount to incompetency, inefficiency, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, dishonesty and “just cause” for discipline and termination.

The district has also filed a report of educator misconduct with the state, as required in certain cases.

Superintendent Vehemently Denies Charges

Rateno has repeatedly and forcefully pushed back against the board’s actions and its narrative.

In written statements shared with local media, he has said he “vehemently” denies all charges and argues the allegations do not reflect his work, his integrity or his commitment to Riverside Local Schools.

He maintains that:

• He has acted with transparency, professionalism and in the best interest of students, staff and the community.
• He will challenge the board’s actions through the process available to him and is “confident” he will remain superintendent.
• He views Riverside not just as a job but as a community he cares deeply about, and he has thanked residents, staff and families for an “outpouring of support.”

“I have always given, and will continue to give, my very best to this district,” he said in one statement, pledging to stay focused on students’ education and well‑being while the proceedings unfold.

Lame‑Duck Votes, New Board and a Community Split

Adding to the tension is the timing and political context of the termination push.

• Board President Scott Fishel and member Dennis Keeney both lost reelection bids in November and are scheduled to leave office at the end of the year.
• Despite that, they have led the charge to remove Rateno, providing two of the three votes needed to start the termination process and suspend him.
• Their actions come just weeks before newly elected members take their seats, prompting accusations of a last‑minute power play.

Newly elected board members Joseph Audino and Jimmielee Vires have publicly said they oppose firing Rateno. They have described the board’s 72‑count resolution as heavy on legal language and light on substance, calling it a “witch hunt” and suggesting the conflict is driven by “personal vendettas.”

Vires has said the community “loves” the superintendent and is “disheartened” by the board’s decisions. Both incoming members have questioned whether there is even enough time for the outgoing majority to complete a lawful termination before they are sworn in and can seek to reverse any actions.

Rare Afternoon Meeting Draws Crowd

The tensions came into full view during what was described as a rare Monday afternoon special session held at the Riverside Local Schools high school field house.

• The meeting drew dozens of parents and community members, many leaving work or rearranging schedules to attend.
• Attendees expressed frustration over the unusual timing (mid‑afternoon on a weekday) and the continuing lack of transparency.
• Within minutes of convening, three attending board members went into executive session, only to return and confirm that:
  • A formal termination hearing had been scheduled for January.
  • An interim superintendent had been selected.

Crowd members reacted with visible anger and disappointment. Recent meetings have featured chants of “Rateno” and shouts of “shame” as votes were taken and board members exited under sheriff’s escort.

Interim Superintendent Installed, Powers Limited

At that same special meeting, the board voted to appoint Robert Scott, from the Educational Service Center of the Western Reserve, as interim superintendent.

• Scott is not currently employed within the Riverside district.
• His role is to oversee day‑to‑day operations while the termination process plays out.
• He is being paid at an hourly rate, and board leaders have indicated he will not be tasked with making or implementing long‑term strategic decisions while the district’s leadership remains unsettled.

The board has framed Scott’s appointment as necessary to maintain continuity and legal compliance during the suspension. Critics see it as another sign that the outgoing majority is determined to sideline Rateno quickly before the board turnover.

Teachers Union Fights $4.6 Million Fund Transfer

Complicating matters further is a financial dispute between the board and the district’s teachers union over a large transfer of funds.

The board moved to shift about $4.6 million from the general fund to the permanent improvement (PI) fund, money often used for long‑term capital projects and infrastructure.

The teachers union filed for an injunction and restraining order to stop that transfer, arguing that moving such a large sum out of the operating fund could harm classroom resources and staffing and that the timing raises questions considering the Buckeye Building Project and the simultaneous fight over the superintendent.

A judge has temporarily blocked the transfer and set a hearing on the matter. The board, through its president, has maintained that it is legally within its rights and is acting prudently on behalf of students and facilities.

The lawsuit adds a new legal front to an already turbulent period, pitting the board not only against its superintendent but also against its own educators.

Buckeye Building Project at the Heart of the Fight

Much of the conflict appears to orbit the Buckeye Building Project, a major construction and financing plan for district facilities.

• The project has a history of controversy, including earlier fights over which buildings to expand or replace and how to structure the debt.
• A previous building configuration decision, backed by a 3–2 board majority, sparked community organizing and eventually helped unseat some incumbents.
• The termination resolution’s emphasis on “sabotage” of the Buckeye project and on alleged improper communications with financial advisors suggests the outgoing majority believes Rateno undermined their preferred path.

Supporters of Rateno argue that he was trying to do what was best and most transparent for the district and that disagreements over financing and process should not be turned into grounds for firing.

What Happens Next

As the Riverside superintendent termination hearing approaches, several key questions remain:

• Will the outgoing board complete the process?
  Time is tight, and Ohio law requires notice, hearings and formal findings before a superintendent can be terminated. The Jan. 4 referee hearing will be pivotal, but the composition of the board by the time any final vote is taken could change the outcome.

• How much weight will the referee give to the board’s 72 allegations versus Rateno’s denials and public support?
  The referee will hear evidence and make findings or recommendations, but the board ultimately votes on whether to adopt them—subject to any further legal challenge.

• Can the new board unwind or revisit actions taken by the current majority?
  Incoming members have publicly pledged to try to repair the damage they say is being done. Whether that can include reinstating Rateno, altering discipline or renegotiating financing will likely be tested in policy meetings and possibly in court.

• What will become of the Buckeye Building Project and the disputed fund transfer?
  With a municipal advisor gone, an underwriter change in motion, litigation over the $4.6 million transfer, and leadership in flux, the district’s long‑term facilities plan is in limbo.

For now, Riverside Local Schools enter the new year with an interim superintendent in place, a suspended superintendent preparing for a high‑stakes hearing, and a community sharply divided over who should control the district’s direction.