Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Athletics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public speakers urge Green Bay school board to reinstate Preble boys basketball coach
Summary
Three members of the public told the Green Bay Area Public School District board on May 18 they want Coach Rick Rosinski reinstated, citing his fundraising, longtime relationships with players and concern that summer programming could be disrupted; the board took no immediate action during public comment.
At the Green Bay Area Public School District Board of Education meeting on May 18, three public commenters urged the board to reinstate Preble High School boys basketball coach Rick Rosinski, saying his removal harms students and disrupts key programming. The board did not respond during public comment.
Chad Levenitz, president of the Preble Boys Basketball Booster Club, told the board he "fully support[s] Coach Rick Rosinski and putting him back in place of that," and warned that a prolonged hiring process could jeopardize summer programming and tournaments that benefit students who cannot afford participation fees.
Beth Dornbush, who identified herself as a district parent with deep family ties to Green Bay schools, said more than 100 families had signed a petition supporting Rosinski and asked the board to weigh the decision's effect on students and community trust. "When districts lose coaches who are deeply respected by the majority of their players and families, it sends a discouraging message," she said.
Jim Hayes, who described himself as an assistant varsity basketball coach in the district for 24 years and a former Green Bay Press‑Gazette sports writer, said Rosinski "has won 217 career games" and argued that Rosinski "deserves, without question, to be reinstated as a head basketball coach at Preble High." Hayes called criticism that the coaches lack relationships with players "a terrible insult."
Speakers repeatedly framed their comments as appeals to the board’s judgment rather than allegations of specific misconduct; several acknowledged that some personal matters cannot be publicly discussed. None of the speakers recorded a direct reply from the board during the public‑comment period. The meeting then proceeded to superintendent updates and routine agenda business.
What happens next: The comments were recorded during the public‑comment portion of the meeting; the board did not take any formal vote or make a statement about personnel during the meeting record. Future action on the coach’s status was not announced at the May 18 meeting.
