Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent alleges retaliation, questions district handling of cheer contract and investigation
Summary
A parent told the board he and his family experienced mishandling of concerns tied to cheer program contracts and alleged retaliation; he said a disciplinary letter was retracted and a special-counsel review found no retaliation despite the impacted parent not being interviewed.
Brian Homan, a parent of district students, used the public‑comment period to accuse district leaders of mishandling parental concerns and to urge the board to increase accountability.
Homan said the family first raised privacy and safety questions in June 2025 about requiring 12‑year‑old students to record and submit videos via a platform "accessible to others," and about a 20‑page contract that required parent and student signatures as a condition of participation. He said district staff did not return calls and that the athletic director told the family he ignores anonymous calls, a practice Homan called a “risk.”
Homan said that, after they raised concerns, their daughter was identified and disciplined; the district later admitted the discipline was improper, rescinded the original cheer contracts, and replaced them with updated guidelines. He also said that, after a subsequent parent question at a cheer meeting, the athletic director issued a letter restricting his wife’s access to school property; Homan said that letter was retracted.
Homan said the family requested an investigation and that a special-counsel review concluded no retaliation occurred, but he told the board the impacted parent was never interviewed during that review. He asked the board to "ensure parent advocacy point" and to treat the family’s experience as a snapshot of how district leadership handles concerns.
The board did not announce any immediate action in response during the meeting. The transcript records Homan’s request for a board investigation and greater accountability but does not include a direct response from the athletic director or administration beyond prior acknowledgments that some documents and discipline were rescinded.
Homan’s full remarks and the meeting record show three related elements: (1) an initial parental safety/privacy concern about student-submitted videos and an allegedly burdensome contract; (2) a disciplinary action the district later acknowledged was improper and documents the district later cancelled; and (3) a special-counsel report that concluded no retaliation even though the impacted parent said she was not interviewed. The transcript does not record the athletic director’s account or any written investigative report in the public record presented at the meeting.
