Langhorne resident tells Neshaminy board her daughter’s 504 request was denied; later questions board member residency

A Langhorne resident and volunteer, Lisa Sullivan, used the public-comment periods at the Neshaminy School District board meeting to raise two separate concerns: she said the district denied a physician-recommended 504 plan for her daughter and that, several weeks later, her daughter was hospitalized; she also alleged that board member Martin Sullivan had not been a district resident for seven months while serving on the board.

In her first comment, Sullivan said she submitted three medical doctor notes and that a physician requested a 504 plan for her daughter, but that the district denied the plan and initially offered terse observations only after several follow-up emails. "I honestly feel that, this was neglect and abuse by the school district for not following the recommendations of the physician," Sullivan said. She added that the child had been admitted to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and had remained hospitalized for a week at the time of her remark. Sullivan said the district placed restrictions on when she could remove her daughter from school for appointments and that she had been paused from volunteering with her daughter’s team after raising the matter.

During a second public-comment appearance later in the meeting, Sullivan said, "Martin Sullivan was not residing in the district for 7 months during the course of his board membership," and cited what she described as Pennsylvania legislation from 1943 (Act 14) and local board procedures that require a school director to remain a resident of the region for the duration of the elected term. She said she had informed district administrators and that she was told by a district official that it was not his responsibility to notify the board.

The transcript shows Sullivan raised the claims during public comment but the board did not take any formal action on the allegations during the meeting. The transcript also records that Sullivan said she had asked multiple times for help and that when she sought explanation about the denial she was told the district "didn't see what you see" and that it took multiple emails for the district to provide the observations that formed their conclusion.

The board did not respond with a public statement addressing the specific allegations about the special-education process or the residency matter during the meeting. The transcript records no follow-up motions or investigative directions arising from Sullivan’s comments.

Next steps: the transcript does not record any immediate action by the board; additional documentation (e.g., student directives, district responses, personnel notes or formal complaints) would be needed to verify or resolve the matters Sullivan raised.