Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tory Pines Coach topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tory Pines students, parents urge board to reinstate lacrosse coach; trustees agree to take up the matter next meeting
Summary
Dozens of students, alumni and parents told the San Dieguito Union High School District board that the Tory Pines lacrosse coach is a pivotal mentor and community leader and urged reinstatement following a contract non‑renewal tied to CIF bylaw findings they say were flawed and handled without due process.
Dozens of students, alumni and parents packed the Oct. 16 San Dieguito Union High School District board meeting to urge trustees to reinstate the Tory Pines boys lacrosse coach after district staff informed him his contract would not be renewed following CIF findings.
The public comments were led by current and former players who described the coach as a mentor and credited him with community service, mental‑health outreach and helping players gain college opportunities. Ross Jacobson, a Tory Pines senior committed to Division I lacrosse, said he was “in complete shock” when he learned the coach would not return and pleaded with trustees to “restate” the coach’s employment. Foster Huang, also a senior and a Division I recruit, told the board the program completes roughly 80 hours of community service each year and argued the coach’s removal harms students and the broader community.
Parents and alumni offered personal examples of the coach’s support for students facing crises. John Gavin described instances when the coach intervened to keep a struggling student engaged in school; several speakers said alumni have gone on to Ivy League and other top universities aided by the coach’s mentorship.
Speakers also questioned the process that led to the non‑renewal. Justin Nahama, a parent, told the board that the CIF did not itself conduct investigators’ interviews and that evidence submitted to the district included “snapshots of text messages taken out of context.” Attorney‑style declarations were said to exist that, according to some speakers, refute the alleged bylaw violations.
Representatives speaking in support of the coach asked the board to place the matter on a future agenda for fuller review. Trustee(s) responded by endorsing a prompt follow‑up: during board reports a trustee moved to add an item on the coach’s status to the next meeting agenda so the board can consider next steps.
The board did not take formal action on the coach’s employment at this meeting; the speakers’ testimony and the trustee motion set up a deliberation to occur at a subsequent public meeting.
What’s next: A trustee asked that the coach matter be placed on the board’s next meeting agenda for formal consideration. The board did not vote on personnel action during the Oct. 16 session.
