The Valley Central Board of Education’s Sept. 29 meeting featured a contentious debate over whether board member Barney Zifkin could serve as an unpaid assistant coach for the boys lacrosse team, with members divided over whether the arrangement would constitute a conflict of interest.

The issue arose at the beginning of the meeting as the board considered Zifkin’s appointment to the volunteer coaching position. Former Board President Joseph Bond asked that the matter be tabled until the district’s attorney could provide an opinion on whether Zifkin’s dual roles would create a conflict.

The motion to table the appointment failed 2-3, with Zifkin abstaining. The board then proceeded to discuss the appointment.

Bond argued that the arrangement conflicted with district policy because the Board of Education oversees the superintendent, who oversees the athletic director and, ultimately, the coaching staff.

“We have a person who’s a member of the governing body in charge of the superintendent who’s in charge of the athletic director who will then become a governing person at the top and also a subordinate in the administrative chain,” Bond said.

He also raised concerns about Zifkin participating in decisions involving athletic personnel, facility budgets or complaints about coaches.

“I don’t see how a parent is going to complain to the board about a coach when that same coach could be on the board,” Bond said.

Other board members disagreed, arguing that state law does not prohibit a school board member from serving as an unpaid volunteer and that recusal could address potential conflicts.

Board member Robert Oakes said New York education law prohibits school board members from being district employees but does not prohibit them from serving as unpaid volunteers, provided they meet the same requirements as other volunteers and recuse themselves from matters directly related to their volunteer role.

Several board members also argued that volunteering in the district should be encouraged and questioned whether serving without pay constituted a personal financial interest.

After the discussion, the board voted on the volunteer appointment. With the required four votes not obtained, the appointment failed.

Zifkin, who had participated in the discussion, expressed frustration with the outcome.

“I’d rather coach than be on the board anyway,” Zifkin said.

He said he had spent 14 years giving his time to the district and questioned why other coaches who had been working with teams had received approval while his had not.

“I was told I couldn’t coach because I wasn’t board approved and we continually have coaches on the sidelines that weren’t board event approved,” Zifkin said.

Rather than settle the policy issue that night, members agreed to refer the matter to the policy committee.