Second, petitioners complained about Mr. Longuil's handling of a December 1993 meeting between college recruiters and Mark McGrath. Petitioners allege that at that meeting Mr. Longuil was perfunctory in his comments about Mark. Petitioners commenced this appeal and requested a stay of Mr. Longuil's appointment. Petitioners contend that Mr. Longuil's appointment threatens the physical and psychological well-being of Mark McGrath, Michael Duran and other players and may irreparably harm the scholarship chances of some players. Petitioners request an order overruling the board's decision to appoint Mr. Longuil as coach of the varsity lacrosse team for the spring 1994 season and directing the board to refrain from appointing Mr. Longuil as coach of any other sports teams in the future.
Respondents contend that petitioners lack standing to appeal the board's decision.
Respondents further contend that the board's decision was made after a thorough investigation into various complaints about Mr. Longuil's coaching style, careful consideration of his record of performance and consideration of the interests of the students. Before addressing the merits, it is necessary to review several procedural issues. The record reveals that petitioners' reply papers contain new material which was not previously set forth in the petition. I have considered these additional affidavits to the extent they clarify statements made in respondents' answer and supporting affidavits. Petitioners John and Carol McGrath allege that their son, Mark, was individually affected by the board's decision since he was a member of the varsity lacrosse team.