Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Volunteer Vetting Safeguarding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents demand accountability after volunteer arrest; board outlines vetting policy changes
Summary
Multiple parents urged the Clay County School Board to explain volunteer vetting and called for accountability after the arrest of a volunteer identified in public comment as Michael Dottoro; the superintendent cited policy revisions and an ongoing internal/external investigation.
Several parents used the public-comment period to press the board for answers after the recent arrest of a volunteer identified in the transcript as Michael Dottoro (transcript contains inconsistent spellings). Sarah Ouellette asked, "Why was Michael Dottoro allowed to be alone with our children? Who gave him keys to the schools?" and urged the board to explain who will be held accountable.
Helena Cormier, whose family filed a lawsuit in April 2025 and who described prolonged trauma related to wrestling activities, said the district's communication and vetting systems had failed and accused the administration of minimizing incidents. She told the board, "This is a documented multiyear pattern of administrative neglect of duty, and we will pursue every avenue to ensure this administration is held accountable." Cormier said a law firm is representing families and called for systemic changes.
Superintendent Broski responded with a summary of actions the district has taken since the incident: rescinding and replacing Policy 9200 to strengthen consequences, expanding the requirement for Level 2 background checks to more volunteers, adding principal attestation and training for staff, creating a volunteer portal listing volunteers for transparency, and ordering internal and external investigations by a Tallahassee law firm. He said the findings of those investigations will determine whether employees violated policy and what follow-up steps are required.
The board did not take immediate disciplinary action during the meeting and scheduled a workshop with outside counsel to discuss litigation on Aug. 25. Public commenters urged the board to move faster and to consider formal removal or other personnel actions depending on what investigators substantiate.
