Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletics Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, students and residents press Gaylord board to reinstate football coach after nonrenewal
Summary
Several residents and students urged the Gaylord Community Schools board to reinstate Coach DJ Shmomiak, citing academic decline, community support and a 786-signature petition. Speakers asked the administration to explain the nonrenewal process and to meet with concerned families.
Several parents, students and residents used the public-comment period at the Gaylord Community Schools board meeting to demand answers and call for the reinstatement of Coach DJ Shmomiak.
Joe Gaylor opened the exchange by tying concerns about the football program to wider academic trends in the district, saying the district has “a 10 year decline academically” and asking why a coach with recent team and player academic honors was informed of nonrenewal the day after the final game. He asked the board to explain the process used to decide not to renew the coach’s contract.
Finn Miller, a junior at Gaylord High School, told the board he was speaking on behalf of the team and community and reported a petition with “786 verified signatures” seeking the coach’s reinstatement. “This coach is like a father figure to this team, this school, and this community,” Miller said, and asked that the administration meet directly with students and families.
Resident Kevin Corbin pressed the board to consider local leadership and accountability, saying the superintendent “does not reside with our community” and arguing that local residency matters to district vision and academic outcomes. Corbin urged community members to make their concerns known to the board.
Board members did not take public comment during the period; speakers said they wanted an administrative response and a meeting to discuss the nonrenewal. The board did not announce any immediate administrative action or reversal on the coach’s status during the meeting.
The next procedural step noted in the meeting was the board’s regular workflow; speakers asked the district to provide a response outside the public-comment period.
