Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Coach Reinstatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, players urge reinstatement of SLO High water polo coach after contested resignation
Summary
Parents, current and former players and community members told the San Luis Coastal Unified board that coach Grant East’s midseason departure was coerced and asked the district to reinstate him or explain the process; speakers cited a 216-signature petition and said an earlier investigation found no substantiated intentional misconduct.
More than a dozen parents, students and supporters asked the San Luis Coastal Unified School District Board on Oct. 7 to reverse the departure of SLO High varsity water polo coach Grant East and to provide greater transparency about the district’s investigation and decisions.
Nathaniel Martinez, speaking for players and supporters, said a public letter submitted Sept. 22 calling for East’s reinstatement had 216 signatures and that the district’s public statements — including an email characterizing East’s exit as a resignation — did not match what families were being told. “A coerced resignation is not a voluntary one,” Martinez said, arguing that the coach did not resign by choice and asking the board to reinstate him as interim under oversight if needed.
Several parents described the timing as particularly damaging because it occurred on the eve of an away tournament and in the middle of the season. Tricia Taves, whose son is a senior, said the team learned “only that their coach was gone” without meaningful explanation or support, and called the handling of the matter “disappointing” and harmful to student athletes.
Other speakers, including Brenda Lunsford, Justin Mayer and Jason Bornbaum, praised East’s years of service and mentorship, recounted improvements in program participation and success under his leadership, and urged the board to prioritize coach support and due process over removal. Mayer said the program had been 7–1 and that families and students had been blindsided by the coach’s exit.
Speakers described an internal investigation that, according to a previous district message referenced by the public speakers, had concluded there was “no substantiated evidence of intentional misconduct or deliberate indifference.” The crowd asked why that finding was followed by the coach’s departure. Multiple speakers urged the board to (a) explain whether the resignation followed pressure or appeal of findings, (b) consider reinstatement with coaching oversight and professional development, and (c) adopt clearer, more transparent protocols for athletic personnel issues going forward.
The requests were made during the public-comment period; the board did not take immediate formal action on the request during the meeting. District staff noted earlier communications that described the situation to the community; the record in this meeting includes calls from families for a public explanation and remedies that emphasize both accountability and support for coaches and student athletes.
Next steps: Supporters said they expect follow-up from the board and district administrators. The meeting record does not show a board vote on the coach’s status at this session.
