Board denies high school softball out-of-state trip after questions about chaperones and transportation

The Trousdale County Board of Education voted 3–2 to deny a proposed out‑of‑state softball trip after extended discussion about transportation, chaperone background checks and whether the proposal matched the paperwork the board had approved earlier in the school year.

The trip was originally approved in November with school bus transportation listed, but the request returned to the board after staff reported the travel mode had changed to private vehicles. Several board members said the revised plan — which indicated “8 plus sets of parents” would attend as chaperones — did not include completed background checks for non‑employee chaperones and left too many details unspecified. A motion to deny the trip carried by a 3–2 vote.

District policy language cited in discussion requires at least one regular staff member accompanying student groups and says registered school buses are preferred over private cars; another policy item cited requires background checks for parents or guardians serving as chaperones on off‑campus trips. Board members said the packet form referenced “8 plus sets of parents” but administrators could not provide a finalized list of chaperones or confirmations that all non‑employee chaperones had the required background checks.

Coach Link and school administrators told the board that the softball program had raised funds toward travel and that coaches had allocated district and coach funds to offset some costs. The coach and the high school principal said the fee to an individual player, if needed, might be roughly $100, and that participation was not mandatory for players. Several board members said they encouraged parents with concerns to raise them directly with the coach and principal.

Board members who voted to deny the trip cited liability exposure tied to unsupervised private vehicle travel, the lack of a completed chaperone roster and uncertainty about how many parents actually supported the trip. Members who opposed denial said they supported the coach’s effort to provide an out‑of‑state competitive experience and praised facility improvements the coach had overseen, but ultimately the majority voted to deny the trip. The board discussed the option of returning the item to a future meeting if the administration provides a complete chaperone list, evidence of required background checks, and clearer travel logistics.

The board did not adopt any new policy changes during the discussion; the denial was a vote on the individual trip request in packet materials.