This story is not a judgment on the selection of Staples High School’s new head football coach.
It reveals, however, important information about the processes by which coaches are evaluated, judged, renewed, not renewed and promoted – and the testimony that the Board of Education, acting May 12 on an appeal of non-renewal by Staples boys soccer head coach Russell Oost-Lievense, heard.
Or did not hear.
This story is based on reporting from witnesses, who requested anonymity to discuss private meetings.
At the May 12 hearing for coach Russ Oost-Lievense’s appeal of his non-renewal, his attorney had this exchange with Staples athletic director VJ Sarullo during her cross-examination of him:
ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: Have other coaches or students come to you with report of coaches using profanity with student-athletes?
ATHLETIC DIRECTOR SARULLO: Are you talking about my 2 years here at Staples?
ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: Yes.
ATHLETIC DIRECTOR SARULLO: No.
ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: No student has ever come to you and made reports of coaches using harsh language?
ATHLETIC DIRECTOR SARULLO: Not that I can recall.
ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: No student has ever come to you and said that a coach has been bullying other players?
ATHLETIC DIRECTOR SARULLO: No.
ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: That’s never happened to you?
ATHLETIC DIRECTOR SARULLO: No.
According to multiple people at a meeting with Sarullo a little over a month earlier, the athletic director was not telling the truth — particularly with the last two answers.
Athletic director VJ Sarullo (center), at this month’s appeal hearing. He is flanked by Staples principal Stafford Thomas, and superintendent of schools Thomas Scarice.
A little over a month before this hearing — on March 25 — a group met to discuss candidates for Staples’ open head football coach position. The meeting included current Staples coaches, Staples Gridiron Club representatives, Staples administrators (including athletic director Sarullo and principal Stafford Thomas), and the captains of the 2024 Staples football team.
The meeting enabled various groups of stakeholders to discuss the 3 final candidates for the position.
At this meeting, the 2024 Staples football captains expressed great concerns about one candidate, an assistant coach on the Staples football staff since 2019. Their concerns related to numerous instances of bullying by the assistant coach, directed at players.
Examples raised by the captains at the March 25 meeting included film sessions that were so intense and humiliating to players that they were brought to tears. A few even considered quitting the team.
Principal Thomas expressed shock, as he had not heard those allegations before. Other people in the meeting were similarly stunned.
Sarullo was not surprised, however. He had heard the allegations numerous times since joining the school in the spring of 2023, from community members.
In fact, Sarullo had not only been informed of the coach’s bullying behavior by students; the previous head coach had also told the athletic director of unacceptable behavior by the assistant.
Instances such as these may be the reason why this assistant coach could not obtain a reference letter from his head coach of the previous 4 years, when applying for the head coaching position in 2025.
Enough concern was expressed during that March 25 meeting that some in the group felt it would be inappropriate for the assistant coach to be promoted to head coach.
Some in the meeting even raised the Staples soccer coaches’ situation, saying it would not be right to promote this assistant, while the soccer coaches were being treated differently.
Sarullo responded to the concerns by announcing that he would have a private meeting with the assistant coach on March 31.
None of this apparently mattered to administrators. On April 2, Sarullo named the assistant football coach as the new head football coach at Staples High School.
This “06880” post is not about whether the assistant is the proper choice for head coach. He has many supporters in town.
It is instead about the “arbitrary and capricious” nature of coaching renewals, non-renewals and promotions — the standard by which the Board of Education was asked to consider Oost-Lievense’s appeal.
Oost-Lievense, by contrast, witnessed a single incident of an assistant coach losing his temper with a player. He put an immediate stop to it, told the assistant coach the behavior was unacceptable and could never be repeated again. It was not. The assistant coach apologized to the entire team for his outburst.
The non-renewal of one coach over an “incident” he was not personally involved in, while promoting an assistant coach accused of directly engaging in worse behavior than what the other coach merely observed (and handled), seems to be the very definition of “arbitrary and capricious.”
The Board of Education never heard about the assistant football coach, however. Sarullo (according to those at the meeting with him) did not give truthful testimony when asked whether any students had ever told him that “a coach has been bullying other players.”
Then, when Oost-Lievense’s attorney tried to ask principal Thomas about the bullying allegations raised at the same meeting — which Thomas attended — the superintendent of schools’ attorney objected.
The Board’s attorney sustained the objection, and refused to let Oost-Lievense’s attorney ask Thomas those questions. (See transcript below.*)
Board of Education members made their decision to affirm the non-renewal of Oost-Lievense’s contract based on the evidence their lawyer had allowed them to see.
They had to rule on whether the superintendent’s decision had been “arbitrary and capricious.”
Perhaps though, the failure of 5 members of the board to insist on seeing all the evidence — on May 12 and today — is the most arbitrary and capricious development yet, in this long, sad affair.
==================================================
*Transcript:
ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: Do you recall that students have come to you and expressed concern that one of the football coaches [Attorney Mooney interrupts: I have an objection] is bullying players so severely [Attorney Mooney interrupts again: I object] that they have been driven to tears?
ATTORNEY MOONEY: This is outrageous. To bring another coach into the situation. There are no facts… [rest of his statement is unclear]
ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: Well, to be clear, it is directly relevant if one coach has been promoted even after complaints of bullying and violating school policies.
ATTORNEY MOONEY: We are not here to try the fate of another coach. This is highly inappropriate…[next portion is difficult to hear], and irresponsible.
MEDIATOR DORSEY: It is all those things. We are not trying another coach here. We are trying this particular coach.
ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: And it goes directly to the question of whether the decision not to renew this coach was arbitrary and capricious [Mediator Dorsey interrupts: No it doesn’t] when other coaches who have been accused of far worse conduct have been promoted.
MEDIATOR DORSEY: No it doesn’t because you don’t have what the other coach … and the board doesn’t have what the other coach did. We’re not here to try another coach.
ATTORNE FRANKLIN: We would have had some of that had my witnesses and evidence not been excluded.
MEDIATOR DORSEY: Well, you’re not going to ask that question so, move on.
ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: Well, I will just say to the board that the fact that there’s evidence which was excluded proving that other coaches have been [Attorney Mooney again interrupts: I object] treated differently from these coaches [Mediator Dorsey interrupts: Objection is sustained] is highly relevant.
BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER ROBERT HARRINGTON: I would be concerned if coaches are treated differently by the administration, as a board member, for sure.
MEDIATOR DORSEY: That’s not here, an issue here either.
BOARD MEMBER HARRINGTON: Well, I’m a board member and it’s an issue for me.
MEDIATOR DORSEY: Well, well that’s fine.