Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Sports Titleix topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Investigation finds scheduling, communication failures in Sept. 24 varsity practice incident; not a Title IX violation
Summary
An outside attorney told the Richmond Community Schools board that a September scheduling conflict between the girls volleyball and boys basketball teams reflected process and communication failures but did not, on its face, amount to a Title IX violation. The review recommended clearer scheduling rules and better conflict handling.
Attorney Jonathan Nates, who led an independent review, told the Richmond Community Schools Board of Trustees on Feb. 26 that his investigation of a Sept. 24 practice-location dispute between the girls volleyball and boys basketball teams found process failures and poor communication but did not, by itself, constitute a Title IX violation.
“This investigation centered on complaints of misconduct related to the events, on September 24,” Nates said in his summary. He described his work as a narrow review of interactions on and around that date, drawing on interviews, written statements, electronic communications and video footage.
Nates said the district’s scheduling system (EventLink) and informal practice-location requests were the backdrop to the conflict. Coaches and athletic staff interpreted a district notice about in-season priority differently; some coaches read it as an absolute right to use a particular facility while department staff viewed it as a generally flexible guideline. The EventLink software also allows proposed changes to appear while still pending approval, he said, and that contributed to confusion about which team had priority on a given day.
On Sept. 24, the girls volleyball team arrived and found the main gym in use by the boys and the auxiliary gym’s taped volleyball lines removed. Rumors that players had removed the lines were dispelled when the district confirmed a custodian had removed them during routine cleaning. Nates reported witness statements that described a heated exchange in Athletic Director Robert Lee’s office and a brief period when coaches were not with the girls’ team during the transition.
On the legal question, Nates walked the board through the U.S. Department of Education framework and said that the narrow facts here — a temporary practice-location dispute and short-term loss of court markings — did not, standing alone, meet the agency’s typical test for an equal-treatment Title IX violation. “The auxiliary gym would be viewed as adequate under the U.S. DOE standards,” he said, noting that the girls’ team had used the space earlier in the season and requested it at times.
Nates recommended that the district treat the matter as a “teachable moment” about how schedules are set, how changes are communicated and how conflicts are handled. He suggested clarifying who must approve schedule changes, ensuring EventLink requests are not relied on as final until approved, and setting expectations for professional conduct in conflict situations.
Board members and other speakers echoed concern about adult behavior and the impact on students. One board member said adults in the situation “failed the students,” and another asked specifically whether nepotism played a role; Nates responded there were no allegations or evidence of the superintendent’s involvement in the decisions under review.
Coaches and department staff who were interviewed acknowledged gaps in communication. Nates also documented competing recollections of conversations between coaches and Athletic Director Lee that left key details unclear.
The report does not recommend disciplinary outcomes in the public summary presented to the board; instead, Nates urged policy and procedural changes to prevent similar incidents. He invited questions from board members at the end of his presentation.
