Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Co Op Sports Pay To Play topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Board to adopt clear policy after co-op sports fees left family facing thousands in charges
Summary
A parent told the Old Saybrook Board that inconsistent charging for co-op sports left her daughter billed $2,200 and another child facing a $1,500 bill; she said the district lacks a written, equitable policy and has a pending CHRO complaint.
Get email alerts on the Co Op Sports Pay To Play topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Denise Still Bratz urged the Old Saybrook School District Board of Education to create a written, transparent policy governing fees for cooperative (co-op) interscholastic sports, saying inconsistent practices have saddled some families with large bills.
"In August of 2022 our daughter was a freshman and we were charged $2,200 annually for her to participate in ice hockey," said Denise Still Bratz during public comment. She said the family discovered other students in co-op arrangements were not charged similar fees and that the district provided no documentation justifying the disparity. She told the board the family has a pending complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.
Bratz said she and her husband met with a recently hired superintendent in July 2024 and were told the district planned to address the issue; she said follow-up communications indicated meetings on athletic policy were to occur but that, as of January–February, no new policy had been presented. "There's still no written policy regarding pay-to-play co-op sports for Old Saybrook High School," she said, adding that the current, inconsistent system creates inequity and confusion.
Board members did not take formal action on the complaint during the meeting. Bratz asked for an immediate meeting with the board and offered to work with district staff to develop a comprehensive policy to ensure fairness and transparency for all student athletes.
The board did not provide a substantive response at the meeting; the presenter later told Bratz the superintendent said he could not communicate further about the matter because of the pending litigation. The family said a current sophomore is now facing a $1,500 bill from an out-of-district team.
Next steps: Bratz requested a meeting with board members to discuss policy development. The board did not set a follow-up date on the record.

