Parents and staff press Seminole school board over Sable Point employee incident and delayed notification

Parents, teachers and other residents pressed the Seminole County Public Schools board on Oct. 7 over the district’s handling of a paraprofessional at Sable Point Elementary who reported violent thoughts to the school resource deputy. Speakers said they were not told for days and demanded changes to hiring, reporting and notification policies.

Why it matters: Parents said the district’s communication practices left families and staff unsure about students’ safety, and several asked the board to change background-check and notification rules to make it harder for employees with concerning histories to work in schools.

Parents and school staff characterized the delay in notification as dangerous and called for greater transparency. “You tied their hands and refused to allow them to say anything that would have and could have managed any potential threat,” Emily Reardon, who identified herself as a Sable Point parent and Sable Point PTA president, told the board. She said district leaders relied wrongly on HIPAA and other privacy justifications to withhold information from parents during the 10‑day period after the incident became known to the district.

Multiple parents and staff said the employee — identified in public comments as “Mr. Simmons” — had previously had incidents that should have been known to human resources. “What assurances and changes in policy do you plan to undertake to avoid a situation like this ever occurring again?” Samantha Von Herbulis, the Sable Point PTA corresponding secretary, asked the board.

Sable Point assistant principal Melissa Nies, who spoke at the meeting, said staff were prevented from sharing information with families and felt “vulnerable” because they could not reassure or protect their school community. Teachers, parents and the principal’s husband also detailed online attacks against the principal and called the lack of communication demeaning and harmful to the school’s reputation.

District response and steps taken: Superintendent Beeman told the board that the employee had informed the school resource deputy of concerning thoughts on Sept. 24 and that school administrators contacted human resources that day to place the employee on administrative leave. Beeman said the district was later made aware of a court petition (a risk protection order) filed by an external entity and that the petition contained information the district had not previously seen.

Beeman said law enforcement advised the district on several mitigation steps, including rekeying the school and increasing law-enforcement presence; she said those steps were implemented. Captain Shaw and other district safety staff also briefed the board on school security and urged continued collaboration with law enforcement.

Board and community requests: Speakers asked the board to pursue several specific changes: mandatory or deeper background checks that capture non‑arrest incidents; tighter processes to notify schools and districts when employees have serious incidents even without an arrest; and a review of the district’s use of privacy rules when notifying families. Multiple parents requested that the board review and, if necessary, revise memoranda of understanding with the Sheriff’s Office and other agencies to permit faster notification when school employees pose a potential risk.

What the record shows: Public commenters and district staff said the employee was Baker Acted (an emergency mental-health hold) after the incident, was prohibited from entering district property, and later submitted a resignation by email. The district said it cleared the employee through the standard background-check process when he was hired because the process relies on arrest and conviction records; the district said no arrest records existed at hiring.

Clarifying notes: Several speakers cited different timelines and facts in public comment — for example, parents said locks were changed 13 days after Sept. 24; district officials said rekeying was recommended by law enforcement and arranged after consultation. The board said it will review the notification and reporting processes and pursue options with law enforcement and state officials to determine whether state statute or local memoranda can be modified to allow earlier notification in similar cases.

Looking ahead: Board members asked for a closed-session briefing after any investigation concludes and called for collaborative work with the Sheriff’s Office and municipal partners to identify both immediate and statutory fixes. Several board members and community speakers also requested enhanced mental-health supports for staff and families impacted by the episode.

Ending: The episode prompted repeated appeals at the meeting for clearer policies and faster, more transparent communication. Board members said they would take the matter up with law enforcement partners and explore whether state-level changes are needed to give districts earlier notice of non‑arrest incidents involving employees.