Parents, staff and students press Hammonton board over coach rehiring policy and alleged interference

At a recent Hammonton Board of Education meeting, parents, staff and students sharply criticized a proposed policy that would require all extracurricular stipend positions to be reposted and reapplied for annually, saying the change threatens program stability and alleging board interference in coaching hires.

Andrea Sprenfeld, a Hamilton/Hammonton resident and 30‑year former district employee, told the board she has seen "a repeated disregard for the defined roles of the Board of Education" and called the pattern of board members contacting staff directly "disruptive, unprofessional, and unethical." She said she is "prepared to submit an ethics violation claim to the school ethics commission." (Andrea Sprenfeld, public commenter)

The controversy centers on draft policy 16‑36‑01, which appeared on the meeting agenda for its first reading. Several speakers said principals in each building had emailed staff requiring all stipend positions to be reapplied for by May 15, even though, as a presenter noted, "to approve or change a board policy, we need to have first and second reading at two different board meetings before it can be implemented." (Speaker raising procedural point)

A teacher who identified themself as the first vice president of the Hamilton Education Association said the reapplication requirement conflicts with existing policy 31‑34, which assigns authority to principals and the athletic director for awarding stipends and also makes those aspects of employment a subject for collective bargaining. "I'm here this evening to respectfully seek clarity regarding the recent change in the rehiring process for coaching and extracurricular stipend positions," the union representative said, asking the board to confirm whether the one‑year term referenced in the emails is part of the current teaching contract and whether the union had been properly engaged.

Students and parents described concrete consequences. Sophie Menza, a 2025 graduate, said coaches provided personal support during a difficult senior year and that the "true impact" of coaches is the students they influence. A student representative warned that forcing annual competition for every coach and advisor "negatively impacts students" by creating instability and discouraging participation.

Several speakers alleged the district had informally recruited replacements before any vacancy existed and urged the board to "table this policy" until three things happen: confirmation of who authorized the emails, verification that the one‑year term is in the contract and that the union was engaged, and reconciliation of the proposed policy with policy 31‑34 so principals and the athletic director retain their authority.

Jason Wilson read a staff letter saying many teachers and coaches feel intimidated and that "fear has become part of the culture" when board members or their family connections appear to influence personnel decisions. "No teacher should feel pressured to change grades to satisfy politics," the letter said.

Board members and administrators repeatedly emphasized process limits: the policy was on the agenda for first reading only and had not been adopted, and the superintendent remains responsible for day‑to‑day administration. One board member asked for the matter to be tabled pending clarification; no formal vote to adopt or table the policy occurred during the meeting.

What happens next: the policy will require a second reading and formal board vote before it can take effect. Community members at the meeting said they may file ethics complaints and urged the board to be transparent about who authorized the staff emails that prompted the outcry.