Public comments at Massapequa meeting show sharp split over 'Chiefs' mascot litigation

A public comment session at the Massapequa Union Free School District Board of Education meeting on June 26 featured sharply divided views over the district’s litigation and messaging about the “Chiefs” mascot.

Laura Kelta, a resident who identified herself as a Massapequa parent, urged the board to end the litigation and accept the local Shinnecock tribe’s objections. “Why are we doing this? We have pride as a people without using the symbol,” Kelta said. She said the district has engaged with the tribe and that continuing the lawsuit was “detracting from a lot more important issues” and causing polarization in the community. Kelta said she was concerned about the billable rates being spent on outside counsel; she said the district was paying “$450 an hour to some DC law firm.”

Other residents offered strongly contrasting views. A resident who did not have prepared remarks told the board the community overwhelmingly supports keeping the Chiefs name and identity and said local tribal representatives had declined to meet, which the speaker characterized as evidence the dispute was political rather than cultural.

Tara Tarasi, who identified herself as founder and president of the CFG Foundation, said the term “chief” is not limited to Native American usage and urged the board to continue defending the name. “The majority of the people want us to stay with Chiefs,” she said, and she urged the board to keep pursuing the matter.

A board official clarified the record after public comment: when the board “voted to comply” earlier, the official said, the action was to adopt a plan that included litigation as an option. “When we voted to comply, it was to pass a resolution and adopt a plan, and the plan was to litigate always from the beginning,” the official said.

Following public comment the board moved to consult legal counsel in executive session and the motion was approved.

Why it matters: The debate over the mascot and the district’s legal response has drawn vocal public engagement and donations in support of opposing positions. Speakers appealed to community identity, respect for Native American perspectives and fiscal stewardship of district funds.

Next steps: The board entered executive session to consult legal counsel; no public deliberation or vote on the litigation was recorded after the public comment period.