Several parents, students and community members addressed the board during the public‑comment period on Jan. 13 to contest the recent departure of a wrestling coach identified by speakers as Adrian (Adrian Rosa) and to urge the board to investigate whether the district mishandled the situation.

“...we were able to actually get about 500 signatures from the community to stand by him and demand more answers,” Elizabeth Metz Frye told the board, saying she was surprised by what she described as a swift removal tied to a social‑media post. Leah Gore, a parent, and other speakers described the coach as an influential mentor and said student athletes were emotionally distressed by his absence.

Several speakers asked whether the district has or applied a social‑media policy in the coach’s case, whether discipline short of separation (warning, reinstatement or mediation) had been considered, and whether the board could revisit the decision. Kimberly Hathaway described her son’s reliance on the coach for behavioral and academic motivation and said the coach’s removal had immediate negative effects on students’ morale.

One speaker said she found a YouTube video that she described as showing illegal betting at a high‑school basketball event and offered to share it with the board; that allegation was presented as a concern by the speaker, not substantiated in the meeting record.

Solicitor Sharon Montaigne clarified a legal point for the public: the board does not have the statutory authority to refuse an employee’s resignation; acceptance of resignations serves administrative clarity and triggers hiring and posting procedures. Montaigne said rejecting a resignation would be akin to forced employment and is not a board remedy.

Board members thanked speakers for their statements and expressed empathy; several said they value the coach’s contributions and will consider what procedural follow‑up is appropriate. The board did not take any personnel action during the committee meeting; personnel items (resignations, appointments, transfers and other personnel business) were placed on the upcoming voting agenda.

No additional investigatory outcome or formal board review was announced at the meeting; community members requested follow‑up and greater transparency about the district’s social‑media and personnel processes.