Parents, players press board to reinstate Newburgh coaches after locker‑room incident; board schedules personnel review

A sustained wave of public comment from parents, former players and current students urged the Newburgh City School District Board of Education on March 11 to reverse or revisit the district’s decision not to rehire several Newburgh Free Academy football coaches after an October locker‑room incident.

Speakers described the coaches as mentors and program builders and said the wider community would be harmed if the coaches do not return. “This coaching staff has dedicated so much of their personal time to build this program,” parent Rick Seglio told the board. Numerous student speakers described the staff as father figures and credited them with academic and athletic opportunities.

Multiple public speakers said the district’s locker room and supervision problems contributed to the incident and pressed the district to assess facilities, security and athletic‑department oversight. “Please see this locker room incident as a whole for what it truly is, a fundamental breakdown of an established system of control,” parent Yael Seglio said, asking the board to “acknowledge this colossal breakdown.”

Several speakers said the district has not provided sufficient information about the investigation. Virginia Hoffman, a parent speaker, said protocols for a bullying investigation committee were not followed and asked that camera footage — which she described as taxpayer funded — be released to the public. “Why was this ignored?” Hoffman asked, referring to district bylaws she said require a multi‑member bullying investigation committee.

Board counsel Michael Shaw read a statement near the end of public comment saying the board intends to have the football coaches’ evaluations revisited and to place that matter on the personnel committee agenda for March 20, 2025, at 6:45 p.m. The board later voted to enter executive session to discuss “employment history of particular employees and advice from legal counsel,” with several central office staff members requested to attend.

Board members pressed for a prompt review. “What do we need to do as a board, as a district, to revisit that decision that was made?” Board member Robert Howard asked after public comment, saying student athletes were being hurt by the lapse in spring preparations. The board passed a motion to go into executive session; members discussed inviting the deputy superintendent and others into that session.

The transcript reflects competing claims about who did and did not follow protocol, the state of the locker‑room facilities and whether the district’s athletic director followed required procedures. Several speakers said the locker room had not been renovated despite prior allocations for work, and speakers described problems with access control and equipment staging.

No formal reinstatement of any coach occurred at the meeting. Instead the board directed that evaluations be revisited in a personnel‑committee meeting and moved to executive session to review personnel history and receive legal advice. The transcript records public speakers saying an investigation into the October incident has been ongoing for 126 days; some speakers referenced DA involvement but the board did not announce a prosecutor’s determination during the meeting.

Ending: The personnel committee meeting on March 20 and the board’s executive‑session review are the immediate next steps recorded in the transcript; the board’s public record will show any personnel outcomes after the committee and executive deliberations conclude.