Parent and Bridgeport alumnus raises concerns about discipline process and video evidence at Bridgeport High

Jeremy Griffin, a Bridgeport alumnus and retired special operations officer now working as a Fairmont State University chief pilot, used his five-minute delegation slot at the March 17 Harrison County Schools meeting to challenge how Bridgeport High School handled a recent student altercation.

Griffin said his son was involved in a physical confrontation in which, he said, the other student had his hands near his son's neck and left red marks. Griffin said the vice principal communicated that the school would apply the minimum punishment because his son did not start the altercation (one day in-school, one day out-of-school), but when Griffin spoke to the principal later she told him the policy resulted in three days out-of-school suspension. Griffin described those conflicting statements as a “disconnect” between administrators and said he was not offered review of any video evidence while at the school.

According to Griffin, school staff later told him a school official (Mr. Snyder) would review video footage but that the footage quality was too poor to determine what occurred. Griffin asked the board why the campus cameras were not upgraded and requested to see the footage himself. He also said the district’s written dispute process—he was told to file a citizen’s conflict resolution form—sends complaints back to the principal the complaint concerns, which he said undermines the fairness of the process.

Griffin told the board he had asked for a fair review and that the disciplinary write-up he received was vague. He said he was told the disciplinary action had been rendered and that the disputed in-school or out-of-school days could not be recovered, which he said had immediate effects on assignments and extracurricular opportunities his son missed.

Board and staff response District staff (Mr. Snyder was named) subsequently offered to review available footage; staff later told Griffin they had difficulty drawing conclusions from the camera recording because of low quality. The superintendent and board discussed summer training for administrators to better align disciplinary decisions with policy; the superintendent said the district plans to provide summer training so administrators understand levels of discipline (levels 1–3) and how to apply discretion. Board members invited Griffin to remain after the meeting for further discussion.

Authorities and process notes Griffin referenced the district’s written discipline policy described in the meeting as permitting one to three days of in-school or out-of-school suspension for specified infractions. He also asked the board to consider better video equipment to support investigations.

Sources: public comments submitted at the March 17 board meeting and meeting transcript.