Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Student asks for girls varsity hockey; reporter questions board's hiring process and Open Meetings compliance
Summary
A student urged the board to create a girls varsity hockey program through a shared-cost model; a parent requested a budget placeholder. Later a local reporter alleged the board's superintendent search may have skirted Open Meetings Law; the BOCES consultant defended the confidential search process.
During public comment, high-school student Amelia Jay urged the board to create a girls varsity hockey team and criticized the district for not providing equivalent opportunities for girls. "I don't think boys should get sport opportunities before girls," she said, asking the board to consider a shared financial model with neighboring districts and, if needed, a modest placeholder in next year's budget so grant funding can be pursued.
A community commenter echoed the request and recommended that, if a launch for 2026-27 is not feasible, the board define a clear path to 2027-28 and add a small budget placeholder now so the program can qualify for potential grants once paperwork is filed.
Later in public comment, Matt Mulcahy, a Channel 3 news anchor, publicly questioned the board's process for hiring the superintendent. Mulcahy recounted that Dr. Magda Parvi's appointment had been confirmed at a prior meeting with an 8-1 vote and said the board interviewed finalists offsite and voted without public discussion. He asked whether the board had sought legal advice about Open Meetings Law and, if the process was deficient, what corrective actions the board would take.
Dr. Matthew Cook, the OCM BOCES consultant who guided the search, responded: he described the process as "confidential, not secret," argued the approach was standard practice to attract sitting superintendents, and said he had used the same method in other searches in the region. He said confidentiality was intended to protect candidate privacy and the quality of the applicant pool.
The board did not issue an immediate legal determination during the meeting. The reporter's questions and the consultant's defense were recorded in public comment; the board's counsel was not quoted and no formal board action on the hiring-process questions was taken at this session.
The student and parent requests for a girls varsity hockey program were recorded and left as requests to be considered by the administration and board during upcoming budget deliberations.
