Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Suspension topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and staff call for reinstatement of suspended Menlo Atherton coach; allege privacy violations
Summary
Multiple parents, staff and community members told the Sequoia Union High School District board they want Coach “Moe” returned to work after 67 days on leave and urged greater transparency. Speakers alleged possible improper disclosure of special‑education records and retaliation; the board did not take immediate personnel action.
Multiple parents, staff members and community advocates pressed the Sequoia Union High School District Board of Trustees on Oct. 9 to reinstate a long‑standing Menlo Atherton staff member known as "Coach Moe," saying his continued leave is harming students and that the district has not been transparent about the reasons for the suspension.
At the public‑comment period, Virginia Davis said she supports Coach Moe and described him as a mentor to hundreds of students. "It's day 67 that you've kept coach Moe ... away from school and doing what he does best," Davis said, adding that the administration had offered only "vague information" about the suspension.
An employee who identified themself as Oftai Mani said the district is violating the coach’s union rights and raised privacy concerns. "Miss Rigotti had to have given me the files because how could she have known I had given it out to someone? This is a federal violation," they said, referencing alleged disclosures of IEP and special‑education materials.
Another in‑person commenter criticized the district’s use of legal defense budgets and said the board and officials had been implicated in a letter from outside counsel. That speaker also referenced an impending EEOC filing and said families expect an apology.
District staff and trustees did not announce any personnel actions during the meeting. President Stevenson reminded speakers that the board does not act on non‑agendized personnel matters during public comment and that the board’s policy is to refer concerns to staff for investigation when appropriate. No trustee moved to take an immediate, board‑level personnel vote during the Oct. 9 meeting.
Speakers repeatedly requested clearer public communications about why the staff member remains on leave and asked the district to explain procedures that led to suspension and any records disclosures. Several callers urged the board to prioritize student supports they said the coach provides and to avoid prolonged removals that they said harm vulnerable students.
The board recorded no formal action on the suspension at the meeting. Commenters warned of continuing legal action and said they will press for additional transparency at future meetings.
