Hunter Central public rallies for coach as board postpones, then fails to reinstate him

Dozens of students, alumni and parents filled the Hunter Central Regional High School auditorium on the evening the board took up routine business — largely to support coach Kevin Jones and press the board to reverse a personnel recommendation.

Speakers began during an expanded residents’ forum, delivering hourlong testimony about Jones’s impact as a teacher and coach. ‘‘One moment should not erase a lifetime of impact,’’ said Robin Samarine, a longtime attendee and parent who urged the board not to let a single incident define Jones’s record. Multiple recent graduates described mentorship that they said shaped college and career outcomes; a former student told the board Jones ‘‘gave me confidence that I never had and made me the hardworking and determined person that I am today.’’

Following public comment, a board member moved to reinstate Jones and another member seconded the motion. Several board members objected to an immediate vote, arguing the personnel matter required additional executive-session discussion. The board voted to postpone the reinstatement vote until after a second executive session; that procedural motion carried on a roll call.

After the meeting’s second executive session the board returned to public session and put the motion to reinstate Jones to a vote. The roll-call record shows Miss Wallace voted no, Miss Gong no, Dr. Halpern yes, Miss Laccasta yes, Mrs. Santangelo yes and Mrs. Kellogg no. Because the board’s rules required five votes to overturn the superintendent’s recommendation, the motion failed.

Board members declined repeated requests during public comment to discuss details of the personnel matter in open session, citing the confidentiality that accompanies personnel deliberations. The board chair said the vote would be taken only after required executive-session discussion.

What happens next: the board recorded that the reinstatement motion failed; members who urged a different outcome said they would continue to weigh options within applicable personnel and legal processes. The superintendent and the board did not provide additional public detail about the underlying personnel finding at the meeting.

Why it matters: The meeting underscored a sharp divide between many students, parents and alumni who urged retention and board members who emphasized procedural limits in personnel matters. The outcome leaves the superintendent’s recommendation intact and the personnel status unresolved in public detail.