|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The sudden termination of Palo Alto High School’s varsity girls water polo coach has sparked questions and criticism from some players and their parents about the school district’s handling of his firing.
Doug Stotland, who has been a coach at Paly since 2017, was fired on Oct. 18 due to his “performance,” Deputy Superintendent Karen Hendricks said in an interview. At the team’s final regular season game on Tuesday night, players protested what they have described as the district’s lack of communication and respect for the team members by wearing pink caps instead of their school caps. In a statement, the student-athletes criticized the district for conducting a “complicated and muddled investigation” that left them with more questions than answers about how and why their coach was fired days before playoffs are to start.
“The focus of the district should always be on its students, and on how to maximize their opportunity and well-being in and out of the classroom,” players wrote in a statement handed out at Tuesday’s game. “We have seen (the) administration fall short of this expectation, as we feel the district has failed to consider the impact of this change on the players (and) on the team as a whole and instead catered only to the opinions of a few.”
Stotland was fired three days after he suspended a player for “speaking disrespectfully” to him, “berating” her teammates and walking out of a team meeting on Oct. 15, he wrote to her in an email provided to the Weekly. This player, whom the Weekly is not identifying to protect her privacy, had filed this summer a formal complaint against Stotland, the district confirmed.
Her family, who did not respond to interview requests, filed a report under the district’s Uniform Complaint Procedure after a pre-season meeting between Stotland and the player. According to Stotland’s lawyer, he suggested to her, as part of a conversation about how she could improve as a player and teammate, that she join his club water polo team. Stotland’s attorney Todd Emanuel said the student became visibly upset during the meeting. Stotland asked whether she wanted to end the conversation, but she declined and they continued, Emanuel said.
According to Emanuel, the district determined that Stotland should have ended the meeting with the player sooner and required Stotland to attend educational courses at Positive Coaching Alliance, a nonprofit in Mountain View that provides resources to coaches and student-athletes. Emanuel called the complaint “frivolous” and said Stotland appealed it out of concern that the player’s parent would continue to push for his firing.
Under what Emanuel described as a “side agreement” crafted by the Paly administration, Stotland was also not permitted to address the player directly, and she was allowed to leave any team meeting or event if she became uncomfortable. Hendricks would not comment on this agreement or whether the district was involved in creating it.
But following the player’s alleged behavior at the Oct. 15 game, Stotland decided to suspend her for two games.
“My expectations for everyone on the team are that they will treat their teammates and the coaches with respect,” he wrote in an email to her late that evening, copying his assistant coaches, the Paly athletic director and her parent on the message. “I hope you will rejoin the team on Friday, be supportive of your teammates and coaches and play a big role in making the team successful, enjoy the rest of the season and be a positive contributor to our team mojo through the rest of the year.”
According to the other players’ statements from Tuesday night, there were “multiple occurrences of open conflict between select players and the coach” during the Oct. 15 game against Gunn High School, which Paly lost.
On Oct. 16, Paly Athletic Director Nelson Gifford and Assistant Principal Wendy Stratton informed Stotland that he was suspended for one game, according to Emanuel. On Oct. 17, the district said it was investigating a new complaint filed against him and that he couldn’t continue coaching while under investigation, his lawyer said. He was notified of his termination that Friday, Oct. 18.
Emanuel called Paly’s decision to fire him “hasty and immoral.”
“This is not a situation where a teenage player should be blamed for the coach’s termination,” Emanuel said. “That’s not where accountability lies.”
The district defended its actions and insisted that Stotland’s termination was based strictly on his performance rather than concerns from any specific player or family. The decision to fire him — which was made by the Paly administration rather than the district office, Hendricks said — was “squarely not based on any complaints.”
“The district oversaw the decision and concurred with it,” she said. “Any time we end an employment relationship there is always going to be cause involved and that’s not something that’s taken lightly or without deliberation or without facts and evidence.”
Hendricks declined to explain the reasons for Stotland’s termination, citing confidentiality of personnel issues. As an athletic coach, Stotland was a seasonal employee of the district.
Players expressed frustration that they were not informed in a timely manner about their coach’s employment status. They said they were unaware of his one-game suspension until the start of the Oct. 16 evening game and that they learned of his firing through a text message that said the assistant coach would be filling in as head coach. They said they lost two practices due to the interruption.
Paly Principal Adam Paulson notified all team parents in an email this Monday, writing that the school had made “a very difficult decision” regarding a change in the coaching staff.
“A school does not take such a step, particularly prior to the end of the season, without significant deliberation,” he wrote “District coaches are held to a high standard for their behavior. Staffing changes such as this must be based on evidence of performance, and not on perceptions or parental recommendations.”
He noted that “coaches are expected to work cooperatively with the athletic director in all aspects of the coaching assignment, including appropriate communication with all student athletes.”
Gifford did not respond to a request for comment by the Weekly’s press deadline.
One water polo player’s parent, who asked to remain anonymous, said that she understands the frustration of students and parents who feel like the district made an abrupt decision without appropriate public communication, but that the district’s hands are tied in personnel matters. She said, however, that Paly should have immediately notified the team about Stotland’s termination and clearly stated that the school would not tolerate retribution against the player who had been involved.
“I would have rather seen the school tell everyone, ‘It’s not their fault. … let’s stand together as a team,'” she said. “I wish the administration would have said that to the team because now, instead, they’re divided.”
The student-players said some of their parents are considering legal action against the district. Emanuel said that his client doesn’t wish to take legal action but that he “cannot rule that out entirely.”
Sports Editor Rick Eymer contributed to this report.
Sports Editor Rick Eymer contributed to this report.
Sports Editor Rick Eymer contributed to this report.
Sports Editor Rick Eymer contributed to this report.
Sports Editor Rick Eymer contributed to this report.
It seems fair to say that there is room for improvement in both Palo Alto high schools in terms of how the athletic programs are staffed and administered. For our kids’ sake, I hope the schools can do better.
Sounds like the school adminstration and school board made a difficult yet thoughtful decision.
It’s about time we end all the drama in Palo Alto high school sports, with coaches, players and parents alike.
The high schools should only hire coaches that go through true background checks, Positive Coaching Alliance training, and follow the social emotional learnings that both Paly and Gunn try to implement. Coaches seem to be held to a different standard than teachers in the district and are often put in high pedestals by parents who are only searching for wins or advantages for their players. Parents can be nasty to each other on the sidelines, coaches berate players and have huge conflicts of interests with their club teams, and more often than not, make comments to players that would be considered completely inappropriate if the comments were made by teachers. The sports culture in Palo Alto needs to change for the sake of all those involved.
Btw, are you sure the pink caps was in protest and not due to Pinktober?
There has to be more to this story.
I can’t remember the last time a local HS coach was dismissed mid-season. It’s not like coaches grow on trees around here. They get paid next to nothing. And, finding a decent coach for a minor sport like water polo has to be an even bigger challenge. Finding a coach with the backbone to bench a player for mouthing off? That’s the kind of coach you reward, not fire!
It looks like the team has improved their SCVAL league record from last season, so what metric are they using to determine performance?
It seems clear the coach was dismissed due to a conflict with one or two players while the majority of the team (including the captains) supported his decisions. Little doubt parental over-involvement was a big part of his dismissal.
Today’s kids and their parents want olympic level coaches, lots of playing time, and no punishment for poor sportsmanship or being a lousy teammate. It’s a shame because sports can teach our kids a great many things they can’t learn in a classroom.
I hope Paly can find a great replacement. Although, I’m not sure who would want a job with over-involved parents and no identifiable metrics for measuring success.
Thank you Paly and PAUSD for protecting the student who filed a Uniform Compliant Procedure. There is obviously more to this story that the school and district can’t discuss in order to protect the student. The coach’s lawyer is working hard to spin a story about how his client was wronged. I trust the school wouldn’t take this action if it wasn’t deemed necessary to protect the student.
@more to the story You clearly didn’t read the public comment from the district.
No one was “protected” as no one needed to be protected. Ms. Hendricks and Mr. Paulson both confirm that complaints or concerns had nothing to do with the dismissal. The firing was based specifically and strictly on his performance. If the original Uniform Complaint had merit it would certainly be mentioned as part of his dismissal.
The district defended its actions and insisted that Stotland’s termination was based strictly on his performance rather than concerns from any specific player or family. The decision to fire him — which was made by the Paly administration rather than the district office, Hendricks said — was “squarely not based on any complaints.”
So basically if some random 14 year old girl wants you fired, you get fired. Period. She basically mouthed off to him and the team, and he benched her to get her to act like she was on a TEAM, with him, not her, as the coach.
Big mistake. She, not him, is in charge here. The district immediately sided with her, no questions asked, and demanded that he go to counseling to show his penance for actually expecting a teenage girl treat him, a grown man and the coach, with some level of respect, which of course is not allowed. He had to kiss her ring to show his acceptance of her total superiority over him by going to counseling, and he refused and was fired.
Now I, as a Palo Alto employer, am expected to employ her in 6 years? Now that the district has cemented her version of control over the adults and the one, one guy who was supposedly in charge of the team? Yeah, right. When the Paly Girls grow up and wonder why no one will hire them, just try to remember what the employers reading this were thinking: NO WAY.
As for more to the story, look at who the girls are supporting. They know the true story, and are probably just as sad to see this as the employers who are very, very carefully watching this. The district absolves itself by claiming it was a performance issue, but his performance was nothing more than his refusal to kiss her ring. Just wait until these capable young women graduate college, they’ll be sad alright. Not your fault, ladies, but why on earth would I take the chance? This guy lost everything, we won’t put ourselves in the same position.
The district has shared that the “Uniform Complaint Procedure “ that was made in May was reviewed and rejected. It sounds like the coach was fired for sending an email to the player, her parents and the AD to address the players inappropriate behavior during a recent game. Shame on the district for creating a situation in which a coach can not protect all team members. I hope we do get more to the story.