Parents press board after NJSIAA rules Cliffside Park violated recruitment rules; board declines appeal on counsel’s advice

Parents and guardians raised concerns at the Jan. 22 Cliffside Park Board of Education meeting after the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (NJSIAA) issued a complaint and subsequently ruled that the district violated its recruiting rules with regard to four student athletes.

Kristen Tansy, who identified herself as the guardian of two students, told the board she has spent substantial money on private legal counsel and presented documentation to the district and to board counsel. She said the students left school after what she described as prolonged harassment and that efforts to find timely redress were unsuccessful; Tansy said she was told the board “chose not to appeal the decision” and that she had received no meaningful response on next steps. She told the board she had recordings, videos and police reports she said supported her claims and said the students are now on virtual learning.

Board members and administration explained the NJSIAA complaint process and summarized the district’s response: the athletic director and the high school principal submitted documentation intended to refute the allegations, but the NJSIAA maintained its position. Board counsel Steve Fogarty reviewed the materials and told the board the case was unlikely to succeed on appeal. The public statement read by board representatives said that, after evaluating the evidence and consulting counsel, the administration and counsel recommended against pursuing an appeal because an unsuccessful appeal could carry “serious consequences and penalties,” including putting the district on probation for two years, and could jeopardize the broader athletic program.

At the meeting the board acknowledged parents’ frustration and said it responded to the NJSIAA and had engaged legal counsel in the review. The administration offered to schedule a separate meeting between parents and the board attorney to discuss questions the board could not address in open session because student-privacy and personnel confidentiality rules limit public discussion of specific student and staff matters.

A second parent, Blaise Collado, told the board that his son, a senior, had changed coaches and teams at the last minute and said he was not told about the investigation soon enough to consider transferring his son; board members said staff were constrained by student-privacy and personnel confidentiality and offered to arrange a meeting with counsel Steve Fogarty to discuss details outside public session.

The board said it stands by its administrators’ efforts to respond to the NJSIAA complaint and that counsel’s recommendation informed the board’s decision not to pursue an appeal. Board members repeatedly said they do not control the NJSIAA’s findings and that, while they disagreed with the ruling, the risk of penalties and the legal opinion informed their decision-making. The board offered parents a follow-up meeting with counsel to address unanswered questions and encouraged parents to contact the NJSIAA directly for further explanation of that body’s process.