During public comment, Lisa Smith told the board she had spoken previously and wanted to revisit events surrounding an alleged sexual assault and the school’s response. Smith said a police investigation began Feb. 11 and that the alleged individual was in the high school on Feb. 12.

Smith said her daughter and other students messaged that the person was in the building for about 15 minutes and that when her daughter went to the administrative office she was told the person was not in the building. Smith said she called the school office twice, yelled, and then staff acknowledged the person was present. She said the day after her daughter was interviewed, a detective expressed frustration that police had not been called earlier.

Why it matters: The parent urged the board to adopt a policy that an individual with an open police investigation should not have building access or keys while the investigation is active. Smith said the school’s handling ‘‘victimized [students] three times’’—by the alleged assailant, by administrators’ failure to act when the person was in the building, and by what she described as the plea agreement in the case.

Board response and next steps: During the meeting, board members listened to the public comment and did not debate the matter in public. The board’s public‑comment guidelines note questions will be routed through administrative channels for follow‑up; Smith said she had received a discouraging email urging discussion directly with the board rather than in public comment, but she said attending the meetings was necessary to surface the issue.

Ending: Smith asked for a policy change so that people under active police investigation would not retain keys or building access; the board did not take public action on the request at the meeting but will process the comment through administrative channels for follow‑up.