Students and parents urge Mountain Lakes board to reconsider action against varsity girls coach amid questions about investigation

At the May 11 meeting of the Mountain Lakes Board of Education, students, parents and community members packed the room to urge the board to reconsider personnel action affecting varsity girls basketball coach Meg Olenowski and to press the district for a transparent investigation process.

"Even though I couldn't play, she still made me feel like part of the team," said Becca Horowitz, a senior and team captain, describing two ACL injuries and crediting the coach with creating an inclusive, supportive environment. "I ask that the board consider bringing back the coach that had such a positive impact on the program in such a short time." (Becca Horowitz, student)

Multiple students echoed that view. "She wanted everyone's experience playing Mountain Lakes basketball to be the best it could be," freshman Marcela Ashley said, recalling team-bonding activities and opportunities to play. Several students said they had not witnessed bullying or harassment and described improved team culture and competitive success under the coach.

Speakers also included former district administrators and parents who urged the board to follow formal process. "Student safety is paramount," said Robert Sutter, who identified himself as a former superintendent in Parsippany-Troy Hills. He told the board he was "deeply concerned" by what he described as a possible procedural problem: he said he was told the superintendent had communicated an adverse outcome to the coach before the formal appeals process concluded, which would "undermine" the due-process safeguards that govern harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) investigations.

Other parents and community members pressed the board to weigh the full record of the season, citing the team's sectional championship and what they called strong student outcomes under the coach's leadership. "She built a culture where every player mattered," said Luke Campanaro, a parent who said the coach made younger players feel included at games and practices.

Superintendent Dr. Siegel told the board and public that "no decision has been made formally" and that the board had tabled one personnel agenda item for later consideration. He said the district must follow the HIB-investigation timeline and that additional information provided at the meeting would be taken into consideration.

Parents and speakers also raised specific process questions: whether all relevant students were interviewed, whether parents were notified of interviews involving minors, and whether administrators had followed established protocols. Several speakers urged the board to ensure investigations are complete, documented and defensible before making employment decisions.

The board took no final public action on rehiring that evening. The Chair announced that agenda item 33 would be tabled and that the board would recess into executive session for further discussion of staff and student confidentiality and legal matters. A later roll call showed the board voted to enter another executive session at the meeting —lose.

Next steps: the board has not announced a timetable for deciding the coach's employment status. Board members said the information gathered at the public meeting would be considered alongside the formal investigation record, and that the district's appeals process remains available where applicable.