MILFORD, Ohio — Milford Athletic Director Aaron Zupka showed lapses in judgment while handling allegations leveled against a coach, a third-party consulting group found during its investigation. However, the Ennis Britton Consulting Group doesn't believe there's cause to fire him for it.
Milford Exempted Village Schools announced earlier this month that Zupka had been placed on administrative leave for personnel reasons. While they provided little information, the district said Ennis Britton Consulting Group would conduct its investigation.
Investigators with the firm spoke to multiple people involved in the allegations, and others involved in Milford's athletic programs, including volunteer coaches and parents.
The investigation found that Zupka failed to report rumors he'd heard a year ago that one of the high school's coaches possessed inappropriate photographs of athletes. However, it found that when allegations were formally presented to school officials on April 24, the district initiated an investigation promptly.
"Only one administrator made a report that satisfies Ohio's statutory mandate," reads the report.
That one person was Assistant Superintendent Jenny Berkley, who conducted her own interviews of several staff members before referring the matter to the Miami Township Police Department, the investigation says.
"The assistant superintendent and the superintendent responded appropriately once informed," reads the report. "The athletic director acted promptly to address the coaching conflict but failed to escalate serious rumors and later permitted a questionable off-site gathering."
The original allegations of an inappropriate relationship between coaching staff and students focus on two coaches. According to the report, on the same day a head coach was told his contract would not be renewed for the next season, that coach sent an email to the district's superintendent reporting the allegations.
Specifically, he claimed there was photographic evidence of an assistant coach's inappropriate interactions with students. The coach was immediately ordered to cease all communications with student-athletes, pending an investigation.
Those claims were determined by the investigators to be unfounded; so far, no photographic evidence has surfaced and the coach who allegedly had that proof has denied it exists, or that the former coach behaved inappropriately.
However, as Berkley questioned staff members following that claim, she learned that other staff members had concerns about the assistant coach.
Multiple witnesses independently reported that he'd shown favoritism toward certain members of his team.
That included engaging in emotionally charged conversations with student-athletes and providing private one-on-one practices with those students without consistent supervision, the investigation says.
Specifically, investigators learned that multiple people had confronted this coach about "crossing boundaries" with students. One volunteer coach told investigators he brought those concerns up to the assistant coach, who shrugged it off, responding, "I'm not going to change."
Zupka told investigators he had no prior knowledge of any misconduct allegations until after the 2024-25 season, when the head coach said he overheard the assistant mention it. Zupka said he immediately confronted the assistant coach, who denied any wrongdoing and said it was a rumor started by former volunteer coaches who wanted him removed.
The athletic director said that because no one had seen the alleged photographs and no students were identified, he did not initiate further action.
Zupka said he planned to recommend the head coach for reappointment after the season. However, in early April, the coach requested a meeting to raise other concerns about the assistant coach, including favoritism, transporting athletes and undermining his authority.
The coaches, a third volunteer coach and Zupka then met to discuss the issues. After the meeting, Zupka said he concluded that the two coaches could not work together. Because the assistant coach was more experienced, he said he decided not to reappoint the head coach. The day he informed the head coach of his decision, the coach submitted an email to the superintendent with his concerns.
On May 8, Berkley contacted the Miami Township Police Department and asked them to investigate. On May 13, Berkley told Zupka to once again ensure the accused assistant coach had no contact with students or parents.
"During this exchange, Zupka stated that (the coach whose contract was not renewed) had not raised any concerns about (the assistant coach who allegedly had photos) during the season and that he was unaware of any issues until the recent complaint and email that were submitted" after the head coach was told he wouldn't be returning, according to the investigation.
In all, investigators found that Zupka did not fire the coach out of retaliation; rather, the coach was let go because of performance concerns and dysfunction within the coaching team. Witnesses confirmed there was dysfunction, backing Zupka's claim that it was a performance-based change.
While the investigation determined the district "took appropriate and timely action" once formal allegations were brought forward, investigators said Zupka's initial response "lacked due diligence and failed to comply with mandatory reporting expectations."
Additionally, investigators said there was a clear communication breakdown when Zupka told the assistant coach he could have an off-site meeting with families to tell them he was resigning despite Berkley's "no contact" directive. Zupka said he believed the district did not have authority over the coach once he resigned, so he told the coach it could happen if off-site and supervised by parents.
That decision, investigators said, did not violate any written policy but "undercut the spirit of the administrative directive and fueled community perception that boundaries were loosely enforced."
Investigators recommend a written reprimand for the athletic director, as well as the completion of mandated training and implementation of performance reviews.
"If further violations or lapses occur, the district may have grounds to pursue progressive discipline, up to and including termination, consistent with contract terms and board policy," the investigation concludes.
