Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Student Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter accuses Bayonne baseball program of using students to influence board, questions ethics over vice president’s coach hires
Summary
At the March meeting, Tasha Mateo told the Bayonne Board of Education that students were placed to sway the board and urged the district to confirm whether bullying complaints linked to the baseball program were investigated under the New Jersey Anti‑Bullying Act; she also raised conflict‑of‑interest concerns involving Vice President Maggio.
At the Bayonne Board of Education’s March meeting in the Nicholas Aresco Auditorium, public commenter Tasha Mateo criticized the district’s handling of alleged misconduct in the baseball program and urged the board to confirm whether bullying complaints tied to the program were properly investigated.
“Students were placed at the plate right in front of you all to sway your decision,” Mateo said, adding that using students to influence board action “is not leadership” and “is actually egotistic and manipulative.” She said silence from students does not mean there was no harm and argued that protecting a coach “at the expense of student safety, mental health, and well‑being is unacceptable.”
Mateo told the board the district serves “nearly 10,000 students” and questioned why the agenda included only five HIB (harassment, intimidation and bullying) investigations that month, with none listed at the high school level. She asked specifically whether all bullying complaints connected to the baseball program were reported and investigated in compliance with the New Jersey Anti‑Bullying Act before the board voted to continue the program under the same head coach.
She also raised an ethics concern, saying the agenda showed Vice President Maggio’s son and daughter listed in paid coaching positions and noting that Maggio participated in prior votes on related items. “Under the New Jersey School Ethics Act, board members cannot act on matters where immediate family has a financial interest,” Mateo said, calling such participation “a direct conflict” and grounds for an ethics complaint.
The board did not provide an immediate response to Marteo’s request for confirmation during the public‑comment period. The presiding officer interrupted Mateo to enforce the allotted time and said the board would accept written comments after the meeting. The meeting record shows Vice President Maggio announced a formal recusal from item B11 earlier in the meeting and said she voted yes on other B items.
No formal investigation updates or staff responses were recorded on the transcript during the meeting. The board adjourned at 6:36 p.m.
What happened next: The board did not take public action on the allegations during this meeting; Mateo said she would await answers after public comment.
