Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Coaching topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, community members urge Greenwood 52 to adopt committee review after firing of varsity coach Matt Bennett
Summary
Three parents and community members told the Greenwood 52 board that the sudden Nov. 13 termination of varsity head coach Matt Bennett caused harm to players and the community and asked the district to require a committee—including district leadership and board members—before ending head coaching contracts absent ethical violations.
Travis Allen, a father of three Greenwood 52 students and a varsity player’s parent, told the school board the head-coach role extends “far beyond the athletic field” and asked the district to adopt a committee-based process to end head coaching contracts. “Please consider please consider establishing a policy requiring a committee approach before terminating any head coaching contract,” Allen said during public comment.
Jessica Pearson said she remained “stunned and confused” by the dismissal of Coach Matt Bennett and praised the Bennetts’ programs and community outreach, urging the board to weigh character and community impact in hiring and retention decisions. “Coach and Missus Bennett are what I would define as a rare find,” Pearson said, describing mentoring programs, an “adopt-a-bobcat” initiative and outreach that brought families back to games.
April Alexander, who identified herself as a nurse and a parent of senior players, described the emotional toll on students after being told the coach had been relieved of his duties on Nov. 13. Alexander said the reasons offered—"lack of improvement and lack of participation"—did not reflect the coach’s broader contributions and warned the decision could affect the athletic program for years.
Board chair Adam Michael Berger acknowledged public comment and said the board would take the input under consideration; no public speaker asked the board to reopen a personnel file, and no board motion in this meeting reversed the termination. Several public commenters asked the board to consider a formal policy that would require district leadership plus at least two board members to review coach-termination decisions when no ethical violation is alleged.
The board did not adopt a new policy at the meeting. Members noted personnel procedures and said vacancies (including the coach’s teaching and counselor positions) are being managed through normal hiring channels; the superintendent said some jobs have not yet been posted and that the guidance-counselor role had been advertised.
