Parents call on Tenafly BOE to replace varsity soccer coaches amid bullying allegations; board signals extracurricular audit
Summary
Multiple parents and students urged the Tenafly Board of Education to remove or not renew varsity soccer coaches, citing repeated bullying and emotional harm to players. Trustees said they cannot discuss personnel publicly and announced a district audit next year of extracurricular staff training and evaluation.
Multiple parents and students used the Tenafly Board of Education public comment period to urge trustees to remove or not renew the high school varsity soccer coaching staff, citing repeated bullying, body‑shaming and harm to student mental health.
"You need to stop the bullying in the Tenafly High School soccer program. It needs to end," said Christian Carrillo, a Tenafly resident and parent, summarizing concerns he said were detailed in an email from his son. Several other parents and former coaches urged board action during the meeting.
Why it matters: speakers said the alleged behavior has produced acute emotional distress among student‑athletes and prompted dozens of parents to complain through school channels without satisfactory remediation. Several commenters said they had gone to the principal, the superintendent and the athletics director and were dissatisfied with the responses.
Parents described similar allegations in multiple accounts. "These coaches have fostered fear, discouragement, and emotional harm," said Karen Collina, a parent. Daniel Rico, another parent, described incidents he said included derogatory language and intentional exclusion of players: "They play these psychological games with these kids." A number of speakers named two coaches as central to their complaints (transcript variants: Michael Karasquia/Karaszia and William Jaeger/Jager). One commenter estimated "about hundred, hundred 50 parents" had concerns about the program.
Board response and next steps: a board trustee reminded the room that trustees "cannot speak about any personnel matters publicly," and said the district would follow up administratively. At the meeting's close, trustees identified a district goal for the coming year to audit the district's mandatory training and the internal evaluative rubric for extracurricular staff and coaches; the board framed that audit as a district‑level review of policy and practice for all extracurricular activities.
What the board voted: the trustees approved the meeting agenda; during the roll call several trustees recorded exceptions to or opposition on a personnel line (agenda item 12.7 dash 7) naming Michael Karasquia and William Jaeger (multiple transcript spellings). The agenda motion ultimately "passed," and trustees recorded their votes and exceptions on the public record (see actions).
Context and limits: speakers and parents urged nonrenewal or replacement of the coaching staff and urged independent or outside review. Trustees did not discuss personnel specifics in public and gave no formal disciplinary or personnel decisions during the meeting.
Ending: The board directed staff to include an audit of extracurricular evaluation and training in next year’s district goals. Parents and community members who spoke said they will continue to press the district for personnel outcomes and additional transparency.
