The Massapequa Union Free School District Board of Education voted to authorize outside law firms to commence legal action related to the district mascot, board officials said at a July meeting. The board approved a resolution authorizing specified firms to represent the district in matters connected to the mascot and unanimously voted to adopt the motion.

The action came amid an extended public-comment period in which student athletes, alumni and community organizers pleaded with the board to keep the “Chiefs” name and associated logo. Tristan, a student athlete at Massapequa High School, said the name “is not only a symbol of leadership and dedication and honor, but it's a mentality,” and warned that removing the name would “erase” part of the town’s history. Giovanni Taurasi, identified as a former student athlete, said the mascot “is a symbol of the great history of our town and our community.” Tara Trossi, founder and president of the Chief Foundation, said the name and mascot “embody a long standing tradition of unity, leadership, and school pride that spans decades” and said the foundation had raised more than $14,000 to support related efforts.

Residents also pressed the board for transparency about legal spending tied to the mascot. Jason Pachecki, a resident, asked for the district’s budgeted and forecasted legal expenses for the 2025–26 school year after the board added an additional law firm to its roster. District Assistant Superintendent for Business Operations Michael Ruff (identified in the meeting) confirmed the district’s legal-services budget includes a miscellaneous line item of $25,000 and said other allocations exist within the overall legal budget. Ruff said he had not prepared a specific projection of future legal costs for the mascot litigation.

Community members sought specifics about who pays for the litigation and how much has already been spent. Board officials said the district retains multiple firms for litigation and that Gercio and Gercio serves as the district’s general and labor counsel; they advised that fee details and retainer information are available in past meeting attachments or via public-record requests. A resident asked why a special meeting had been called at short notice; board staff said the meeting was convened for “time-sensitive litigation matters” and the board deemed the situation an emergency under applicable law.

Board discussion on the resolution was procedural at the public meeting: the board president called for a motion authorizing specified law firms to act on the district’s behalf concerning the mascot; the motion received a second and was approved by voice vote. The resolution named several firms in the meeting record and referenced confidential schedule A for the parties involved.

The board did not provide a detailed, line-by-line accounting of litigation expenditures at the meeting, nor did it provide a projection of total future costs for the mascot litigation. Officials pointed to the district website and past agenda attachments for existing budget documents and said more specific itemized billing could be obtained through a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request or by reviewing past agenda materials.

The board closed public comment after hearing multiple speakers and later returned to executive session for personnel matters. No additional formal actions related to the mascot were recorded in open session that night.