Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Lacrosse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents press Watchung Hills board for written review after lacrosse coach’s contract not renewed
Summary
Parents of lacrosse players urged the Watchung Hills board to reconsider the non-renewal of Coach Prudente's contract and requested a written account of the investigation and who held decision authority; they asked for a substantive response and remediation steps within weeks.
Several parents used the board’s second public-comment period to challenge the district’s decision not to renew the varsity lacrosse coach’s contract and to demand a transparent review of the decision-making process.
Murat Djavit, a parent, told the board he and other families support a measured approach that would restore continuity to the lacrosse program while putting "appropriate guardrails" and clear performance expectations in place. He said parents were told the athletic director conducted an investigation but that students and many parents were not interviewed.
"We are asking the board to bring him back with appropriate guardrails," Djavit said, asking for a collaborative solution rather than an immediate termination.
Another parent, Danielle Kelly, asked the board to provide a substantive written response documenting how the non-renewal decision was reached and who had final authority, and suggested the district provide that written response as soon as practicable (she suggested July 7). Kelly said parents had received conflicting accounts of whether the athletic director or higher-level administrators made the decision.
Gretchen Minieri, whose family has a history of multi-sport participation in the district, said the lacrosse program needs an experienced coach and that the decision came as a surprise to players and families. She urged the district to re-evaluate the non-renewal and, if privacy rules limit what can be shared, to prioritize finding a qualified replacement.
Board members acknowledged the parents’ concerns but reiterated the board’s and staff’s legal and ethical obligations regarding personnel confidentiality. The board said it would review the concerns and indicated it would follow up through appropriate channels; parents pressed for a clear timeline and a written explanation of the investigative steps and decision authority.
No personnel action was taken during the public meeting; the board said it would return to executive session to complete confidential business and would provide follow-up consistent with personnel privacy rules.
