Parents press Glen Rock board for transparency after hockey‑game suspensions; board affirms closed‑session HIB findings and directs parents to administrative or

Several parents and a Glen Rock High School student used the board's public‑comment period to challenge the district's handling of disciplinary actions stemming from a Dec. 13 hockey game.

Student Eva Pittman told trustees she had been denied a timely opportunity to start a school‑based student group and described the urgency she felt after a family member's death; she asked the district to make the club‑formation process more flexible. Pittman said the requirement to wait until February and then the following September to begin a club felt “overly restrictive.”

Multiple parents described the disciplinary process for students who appeared in a video of the hockey‑game incident and said suspensions varied widely (some students received 3½ days, others 2 days, some only lunch detention, and some none). Parent Robert Morrissey told the board he believed discipline was “reckless, unprofessional and based on flimsy evidence” and urged trustees to review the evidence themselves. Jessica Origi said that the video she viewed did not match the administration's description of violence and that the suspensions "did not fit the crime." Colleen Monahan said she contacted the Hackensack Police Department and found no formal police report to substantiate claims that pepper spray or arrests were imminent.

Speakers repeatedly asked the board to remove suspensions from students' records and to hold administration accountable. Parents alleged inconsistent communication from administrators and questioned how decisions were made about who received which level of discipline.

In response the board said it had been cc'd on emails and had received requests for meetings but repeatedly explained the legal limit of the board's authority. President Robinson and other trustees stated that the board does not adjudicate individual student discipline, that it is the district administration's responsibility to handle those matters, and that parents may file complaints with the Commissioner of Education. The board offered to meet with families and suggested parents contact the acting CSA's assistant to schedule appointments.

Separately, the board approved a resolution affirming decisions reported by the acting CSA about several HIB (harassment, intimidation and bullying) matters (case identifiers were read into the minutes). The motion to affirm those closed‑session determinations passed on a roll‑call vote with three abstentions (Miss Calvez, Dr. Pucci Bender and Mr. Tang) and the board recorded no votes against the motion.

The board closed public comment and moved on to other business, saying it would not discuss individual student discipline in the public meeting format but would provide contact information for parents seeking follow‑up.