Clay County School Board Chair Erin Skipper said she does not want a cap on how much booster clubs can pay coaches. She made the comments at a September 22nd School Board workshop.
District staff presented new rules for school support organizations, commonly called booster clubs. Under the rules, boosters cannot fund coach pay during the 2026-27 school year.
Staff pointed to unresolved legal questions, including Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education.
Two board members criticized Title IX during the discussion. Board member Michele Hanson said the law “has become a handicap” at the college level. Skipper said of the equity argument, “I don’t agree with this.”
New Rules For Booster Clubs
Chief of Secondary Education Dr. Michael George and District Athletics and Development Coordinator Christina Thompson presented the rules. George joined the district about two months ago. He said staff reviewed booster bylaws from neighboring counties and a neighboring state.
George described boosters as independent nonprofits led by parents and community members. He said they add to what the district provides. They cannot replace a program’s budget.
Under the proposed rules, principals have the final say over booster fundraising and spending. Skipper asked whether that came from state law. George said it was the district’s choice.
Skipper raised a concern about that authority. “I just don’t want the principal to hold the booster back,” she said. George said he would rather give that authority to the school leader.
Board member Ashley Gilhousen asked about a grievance process for disputes. George said district staff is building a playbook to handle those cases.
Other rules include:
Booster donations flow through school internal accounts under Policy 6608.
Donors can earmark money for a specific purpose, such as football helmets. Staff said the district will create a designated fund to track it.
Equipment purchases go through district purchasing after principal approval. Staff said this ensures items meet safety standards.
School employees cannot handle booster money or sign for a booster.
Fundraisers require two people to handle cash. Deposits are due within four business days.
Any booster raising $100,000 or more gets an automatic audit. George said the state threshold is $250,000.
Boosters must carry their own insurance.
Boosters can use school names and logos only with written principal approval. They must also appear on the district’s list of compliant organizations under Policy 9215.
Boosters can still hold raffles. Staff said those must take place off school property because of state gambling laws.
No Booster-Funded Coach Pay This Year
Thompson said state law now gives school boards the option to allow booster-funded payments to coaches. She said that option is not automatic. It also does not protect the district from liability.
For the 2026-27 school year, boosters cannot fund stipends or supplements for coaches, activity directors, or club sponsors. Thompson said the first year gives boosters time to learn the compliance rules.
It also gives the district time to design a pay plan that is “sustainable,” “compliant,” and “equitable.”
Thompson said neighboring districts are not yet considering booster-funded coach pay. She said Clay County could gain a competitive edge by building a process with safeguards.
George said other districts are holding back on purpose. “I think a lot of people are just waiting for someone to jump in and see what happens,” he said.
Staff want boosters up and running by January. George said the district plans to take up coach pay through boosters next summer.
Thompson said any plan would need a recommendation from Superintendent David Broskie and a board vote. She said staff has discussed a possible cap on booster-funded pay, but no proposal is final.
Skipper Wants No Cap
Skipper said she wanted the board to know where each member stands before year two. She made her own position clear.
“Moving forward in year two, I personally do not want guardrails,” she said.
Skipper offered an example. A donor pledges $100,000 a year for five years to pay a specific coach. She said the district should not turn that donor away.
“I shouldn’t have to tell them, no, because there’s a policy that says you can’t be paid this because this organization is upset or this one doesn’t feel like it’s fair,” she said.
Board member Robert Alvero backed her. “We should not limit them on how much that group wants to pay the coach,” he said.
Thompson raised another risk. A booster could promise a coach $100,000 and then fail to raise it the next year. She also described a donor whose son stops playing and who then wants to cut the coach’s pay. “There’s a lot of combative issues that could occur,” she said.
The Title IX Debate
George said the main reason districts are waiting is Title IX. He said no one knows yet whether heavy booster spending on one sport over another would count as a violation.
Hanson first said she could see both sides. “Ideally I like the fact that there’s no cap, but I can see how legally there could be problems,” she said.
Gilhousen explained how Title IX works. “It’s not about a dollar amount; it’s about equity,” she said. She gave an example. A football booster raises $100,000, and a girls volleyball booster raises $100.
The football money stays with football because the donor restricted it. But the district must spend its money equitably year over year.”
Skipper pushed back. “This is very, very—I don’t agree with this,” she said. She then added, “I shouldn’t say I don’t care about equity; I don’t mean it like that.”
Skipper said boosters should compete. “This isn’t the YMCA,” she said. “It’s a competitive market, like go, go fundraise.”
She asked whether Title IX even applies to boosters. Thompson said it does. She said the district invites boosters in, so district equity standards apply.
Broskie backed the staff approach. He said Title IX is tied to the district’s federal and state funding. He said the district does not want “some administrative bureaucrat coming later” with a Title IX claim.
“It’s just crazy to me because what is the point of getting ahead if you’re going to be held back?” Skipper said.
Later in the discussion, Hanson turned critical of the law. “I do feel like at the college level, Title IX has become a handicap,” she said. “Like, you know you’re going to get so much money for your softball program, whether you work at it or not, right?”
Hanson said she would rather see booster money go to programs than to top coaching salaries. She said some groups turn down travel opportunities because they lack the money.
Board member Beth Clark did not comment during the discussion.
What Title IX Requires
Title IX is part of the Education Amendments of 1972. It bars sex discrimination in any education program that receives federal money. That includes public school athletics.
Federal rules require schools to provide equal athletic opportunity for boys and girls. Regulators look at areas such as equipment, facilities, travel, and coaching. Coach assignments and pay are among the listed factors.
Thompson said Title IX covers more than dollar amounts. She gave the example of lighting. If the baseball field has lights, the softball field needs lights too.
What Comes Next
The School Board asked staff to return in six months with an update. That would put the next report around March 2027.
George said staff will use that time to train employees and finish a booster playbook. Boosters would then start in January. Thompson said staff will also consult the district’s lawyers and follow how other districts handle the issue.
The workshop was a discussion session. The board took no vote on the booster rules or coach pay.
CN&V will continue to follow the booster rules as the board takes up coach pay next year.