Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, current and former swimmers urge Pleasant Valley board to ensure fair process for swim coach Stacy
Summary
Parents, alumni and current swimmers told the Pleasant Valley Community School District board they want a fair review and more information before any personnel action involving swim coach Stacy; speakers said the coach built lasting relationships with athletes and that they had seen no safety-related misconduct.
At a school board meeting, more than a half-dozen parents, current swimmers and alumni urged the Pleasant Valley Community School District board to ensure a fair review before taking personnel action against the high school boys swim coach, Stacy.
A series of public commenters described long-term mentoring and athlete development they attribute to Stacy and said removing her would damage team morale and culture. “Stacy is an amazing coach who cares about all of her swimmers,” said Kay Bonner, a junior on the high school swim team. Lis Credi and other parents described multi-year commitments from the coach that they said helped students reach college-level competition.
The speakers said the district had not provided clear written documentation about the allegations. “She’s received no documentation. There’s nothing in writing. Everything’s been verbal and a threat and that should never happen,” Kim Lundry told the board, asking that the coach be allowed to present her side.
A public commenter representing members of the team said they did not believe the reported matter involved student safety and characterized the situation as a possible miscommunication rather than intentional misconduct. Multiple alumni and parents asked the board to examine all angles and afford due process before making personnel decisions.
Board members did not announce personnel actions during the meeting. Director Caner asked that the board consider a closed session to discuss the matter further, and trustees deferred detailed comment, saying the district’s processes should be followed. The meeting record shows no formal personnel vote on the coach’s status during the session covered by the transcript.
The board’s handling of the complaint and any next steps were not detailed in public minutes presented at the meeting; speakers urged transparency and explicit documentation of findings and outcomes as the review proceeds.
The board moved on to other agenda items after public comment; the district has not released additional paperwork or findings on the matter in the meeting record provided.
