Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Extracurriculars topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge board to allow qualified out‑of‑district players to keep Orange high‑school hockey viable; board defers policy decision
Summary
Two parents told the board they support temporarily permitting qualified players from other districts to join Orange's varsity hockey roster to reduce fatigue and safety risks and preserve the program. After discussion the board removed policy 24‑31 (2431) from tonight’s vote and agreed to revisit the issue at the next meeting.
Multiple parents and the volunteer parent manager spoke at the Oct. 13 public-participation period to press the board to preserve Orange High School’s hockey program by allowing qualified out-of-district players under controlled conditions.
“My name is Brian Hedges... I live at 60 Mill Creek Lane, and I’m here tonight to talk about the impact of HB 96 on our Orange hockey team,” parent Brian Hedges said, describing hockey as a niche sport that depends on ice time and multi‑year player development. Hedges and others explained that roster shortages can increase fatigue and injury risk and urged the board to consider policies that allow limited out‑of‑district participation.
John Rice, who identified himself as “the volunteer parent manager for the ice hockey team,” summarized parents’ support for the change and proposed safeguards: requiring out‑of‑district players to provide their own transportation, commit for the full season, and pay a participation fee if appropriate to ensure fairness to Orange families.
Board members discussed proposed policy language in item 24‑31 (referred to in the agenda as 2431) that had removed special inclusion language. Members expressed differing views about leaving permissive language in the policy versus relying on statutory authority and superintendent agreements. One board member said including permissive language would place more administrative responsibility on the superintendent; others preferred the board retain explicit discretion.
Rather than approve the revised policy tonight, the board voted to remove policy 24‑31 from the agenda and to bring it back for further consideration at the next meeting so all members can participate. The chair characterized the deferral as a courtesy to the speakers and an opportunity to craft clearer policy language that aligns with statute and operational realities.
What’s next: The board will revisit policy 24‑31 at the next regular meeting. Parents asked board staff to consider clear enrollment expectations and administrative procedures if out-of-district participation is allowed.
