Parent alleges repeated safety failures, IEP lapses at Watchung Borough schools; board says personnel cannot be discussed in public

A Watchung Borough parent raised serious safety and special‑education concerns during public comment at the board’s April 24 meeting, alleging that her son — described in the comment as medically fragile and covered by an individualized education program (IEP) — fell headfirst down a school staircase on March 6 and again on April 21 after the district failed to assign a required one‑to‑one aide.

The parent, identified in the transcript as Salad Munoz, said she had documented multiple warnings to the administration and to staff and that staff had reported concerns about the assigned aide’s fitness for duty. Munoz said the child was hospitalized after the first incident and that a second fall occurred within weeks of his return. She described providing medical documentation and repeated warnings and said the district’s response had been delayed or dismissive.

"When administration delays action, ignores risk, fails to collaborate, students get hurt," Munoz said, recounting the incidents and warning that she would pursue legal remedies if the district did not act. She asked for a private meeting with the superintendent and the board and said she planned to submit written documentation to each board member.

Board officers repeatedly interrupted to remind the speaker of statutory limits on public discussion of personnel and hiring, stating that New Jersey statutes do not permit the board to discuss personnel matters in public session. The transcript contains no recorded on‑the‑record response from the superintendent or board accepting responsibility or describing remedial steps at the time of the meeting.

Because the parent’s remarks raised allegations about specific personnel actions, the board chair and legal counsel (as represented in meeting procedure) limited public discussion and indicated the item must be handled outside public session or in private follow‑up. Munoz told the board she would pursue further steps and asked for a meeting with district leadership.

The allegations in the public comment are unproven in the meeting record. No board vote or formal district statement responding to the allegations was recorded in the public session. The administration said personnel matters are restricted from public discussion but did not provide a public update or timeline in the meeting for how the district would review the claims.

Next steps indicated by the speaker: the parent requested a private meeting with the superintendent and board members and said she would submit documented evidence; the board did not place the matter on the public agenda or announce a specific follow‑up at the meeting.