Loyal School Board agrees to assess sports co-ops on individual basis

By Valorie Brecht After originally passing a motion in January to wait a year before approving any additional sports co-ops with Greenwood, the Loyal School Board decided to rescind that motion and pass a new motion stating that each sport would be considered on an individual basis.

The action took place at last Wednesday’s school board meeting.

“We had talked about possibly co-oping for middle school track. In order to do that, we have a motion out there that we ‘talk to Greenwood, tell them what our thoughts are and wait for one more year.’ So we would need to rescind that motion to move forward not only for our middle school track, but I think to show Greenwood that we are moving forward in our partnership, and to make sure that we maintain that partnership. I think we need to rescind that motion and make a different motion, whether it be to take it sport by sport or whatever,” said District Administrator Chris Lindner.

Board member Derek Weyer asked if by rescinding the motion, the board was essentially starting over.

“I think the original motion is pretty broad. It could be construed to mean we were not going to talk about sports co-ops until the end of January next year. I think rescinding the motion is not so we have a plan in place to change something immediately, but it’s opening up the discussion again. I’d be inclined to keep things open,” said fellow board member Tom Odeen.

Board president Dennis Roehl asked if there were any other comments from board members. Dave Clintsman Jr. chimed in.

“I’m all in favor of middle school track co-oping. No problem, 100 percent,” said Clintsman. “But why are we waiting until the week before practice starts to address this? I mean, in talking to individual people, they were talking about it six, eight months ago. Why didn’t we talk about it six, eight months ago? It’s always a last minute thing. Then all of us look like a bunch of – you know what. This should have been done way…” “This is where this motion came up, is when we were talking about it. That’s how this motion got made, is we were talking about it,” interjected Roehl.

“About middle school track?” replied Clintsman. “Yes, yeah. It was…” said Roehl. “It was basketball,” said Clintsman. “They were talking about all kinds of things,” Roehl finished. “That’s what I mean, is this came up and it put everything to a stop. And we’ve been stopped for quite a while.”

The board already had a motion on the table to rescind the motion made in January, so they proceeded to vote on that. They unanimously voted to rescind.

Odeen then made a new motion “to allow continued conversations about the possibility of co-oping middle school and high school sports with Greenwood. Each sport may be considered and discussed on an individual basis.”

Weyer suggested amending that motion to change “may” to “must” — so, it would read, in part, “Each sport must be considered and discussed on an individual basis” (emphasis added).

Weyer said he would also like to see language in the motion requiring coaches to provide input to the board before the board made a decision. He said that sometimes the board was getting “mixed messages” between the athletic director and the coaches, and some of that confusion could be eliminated by cutting out the middleman and hearing directly from the coaches. As an example, he said baseball coach Randy Montalvo did a great job explaining the JV baseball program and its needs at the last meeting, and he wanted to see more of that.

“I understand that we (the board) are the end result, or we have to make that decision, but without valuing their (the coaches’) input, we’re wasting our time,” said Weyer.

Odeen said he was very much in favor of the coaches providing input on their sport, but was hesitant to go so far as to require it.

“If we put we ‘must have a presentation from the coaches,’ do we need a timeline? Because every sport has its own deadline it has to meet,” said Odeen. “Are we also asking teachers that they must present before we vote? But, I am all in favor of hearing from the coaches.”

“Well, maybe ‘presentation’ isn’t the right word, but we need to have their input,” replied Weyer.

“Maybe we could say, ‘Coaches’ input is highly recommended’?” suggested Odeen. “I feel like the coaches must talk to each other. I don’t know if we should require the coaches to come to our meeting,” said board member Holly Lindner.

Roehl agreed that he wanted the coaches’ input but didn’t think it should be mandatory. Since several board members weren’t interested in adding language regarding coaches to the motion, Weyer agreed to drop that part. He then questioned who was even responsible for initiating planning conversations for sports in the first place.

“Last May, we were assigned committees. I’m on an athletic committee, but we’ve never met. So, some of the emails that came through in the last week said, ‘Take some of this back to an athletic committee.’ Well, we have one, but we’ve never met. So, what is the goal of that committee? Or, is that where this committee could start being utilized, maybe?” said Weyer.

“Absolutely,” said Roehl. “OK. Because we have not met in a year. And I don’t know if that’s my fault, but it could be,” said Weyer.

“Right? Is that the goal of that committee? Or what is the goal of that committee?” he added.

“To make sure things are moving in the right direction,” said Chris Lindner.

“So I falied. You can say it; I failed,” said Weyer. “I would say whoever’s on it, including myself, would be to blame,” said Chris Lindner.

Weyer said he would like to see a meeting of that committee scheduled, but it would have to wait until the new board members were installed and new committee members assigned at the next board meeting.

The board then returned to the main discussion. After a lull in the conversation, Chris Lindner made a comment.

“I know there’s questions on why are we rescinding it… I can’t make it any clearer than, some would say or people are saying I have an agenda. Darn right I have an agenda. I want this school district to be, 10 years down the road, to be Loyal School District, all-righty? Is it with Greenwood? We don’t know. We talked about, 75 percent, 76 percent said they’re in favor of moving forward on looking at consolidation. If that doesn’t fly, everything we’ve worked for the last two years, year and three-quarters is out the window and we’re not going to do anything anymore? My opinion, we’re going to continue to partner with Greenwood and still continue to collaborate and work towards something. And giving opportunities to kids, students. I think that is going to be a no-brainer.

“Twenty years ago when it (the consolidation effort) stopped, when they voted it down, there was separation and mixed feelings and people were frustrated and this day and age, with what our county is facing in the future, I think this is a necessity that we have a partner or partners down the road. All right? Will I see this as a superintendent here? I don’t know. So I’m just saying that, we do not want to lose a partner right now.”

“I agree with Tom; I think the first motion was just a little too broad and you know, we should always be seeking conversations with anybody willing to talk, and by that previous motion we wouldn’t be able to do that,” Weyer said. “And nothing might come out of this. But now we can have — for each individual sport we can have the conversations, or we can direct the people to have those conversations.”

Weyer made the motion, seconded by Odeen, to strike “may” from Odeen’s motion and put “must.” That amendment was approved unanimously.

The board then voted on the motion itself, now worded as “to allow continued conversations about the possibility of co-oping middle school and high school sports with Greenwood. Each sport must be considered and discussed on an individual basis.” That was also unanimously approved.

Odeen clarified that this motion did not prohibit the board from discussing multiple sports at one meeting; however, if the board were to discuss multiple sports at one meeting, each sport would need to have its own agenda item.

The board will meet next on Monday, April 22, at 7 p.m. — a change from the usual Wednesday meeting date.