Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees adopt new coaching‑staffing policy after contested debate on minimum coaches
Summary
After a lengthy debate and a failed amendment to tie coach counts to participation thresholds, the board approved Policy IGDB on third and final reading; some members cited safety and counsel input in their dissenting remarks.
The Laramie County School District #2 Board of Trustees approved Policy IGDB (staffing formula for coaches) on third and final reading May 12 after trustees debated an amendment that would have linked coach counts to student participation thresholds.
Trustee Matt proposed an amendment that would have reduced the number of coaches when participation fell below specified thresholds ("reduce to 4 coaches if participation is at or below 48 student athletes and or 3 coaches if participation is at...above 36 student athletes"), but the amendment failed after a roll call. Facilities/athletics staff and the policy drafter expressed concerns about the amendment's operational effects.
During debate, trustees raised safety and equity concerns. One trustee said the amendment could leave coaches and programs uncertain about staffing year to year; another cited counsel’s guidance about potential gaps under Title IX or related obligations. "I don't believe I could sit here as a board member and protect the district from a gap in this," one trustee said in explaining a no vote.
After the amendment failed, the board voted to adopt IGDB as presented (motion to approve on third reading: Kendra; second: Mike). The motion carried. The policy will be posted as the district’s coaching staffing formula and will guide athletic staffing allocations going forward.
The transcript indicates trustees discussed the policy with input from athletic directors and referenced previous meetings with CAL (conference/association) members. The final adopted language retains district discretion in staffing decisions; the failed amendment would have created participation-based automatic reductions that some trustees and the policy drafter opposed.
