School officials have refused to comment on student disciplinary appeals held during an executive session of the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School district committee Monday night over the six-month exclusion of four high school students for drug infractions.

Vineyard schools superintendent Dr. James H. Weiss said any decisions would be kept confidential. “These are student matters with minors, and we wouldn’t release that information,” he said. “Those minutes would be sealed.”

In late May, school authorities confirmed that four students had been excluded from school for six months for allegedly attempting to purchase marijuana. While up to 20 students were originally questioned for the infraction, only those four who admitted their involvement were punished with exclusion.

At the time, a parent of one of the excluded students, who asked to remain anonymous to protect the child, said the penalty was unfair and amounted to punishing the students who told the truth, while those who denied the allegations escaped penalty.

The parent said an informant who tipped school authorities was unreliable.

School authorities, including Mr. Weiss and high school principal Stephen Nixon, refused to comment on the infractions in May but said they had followed the school drug policy in determining the appropriate punishment. The parents of each student were given the option to appeal the decisions.

Mr. Weiss announced at a high school district committee meeting early last month that the appeals would be held during the June 28 committee meeting.

Of the alleged violation of the school drug policy, he said: “I have ruled on it. The individuals were not particularly pleased with my ruling.”

On Monday night, the committee announced it would go into executive session to discuss disciplinary actions in two separate hearings relating to at least two different students. Over the objections of committee member Jeffrey (Skipper) Manter, the committee decided to wait to discuss the process for the disciplinary hearings in executive session once the appellants were present, on the advice of their legal counsel, Mary Joann Reedy.

When committee members reconvened in public session, they did not comment on the proceedings.