Community members pressed the Clay County School Board on social media posts by a Lake Asbury Junior High employee that several speakers said wished harm on unvaccinated people and, by extension, students. The superintendent placed the employee on a short suspension and referred the matter to the Florida Department of Education’s Professional Practice Services for investigation; the board’s legal counsel said the superintendent’s actions followed board policy 1148.01 on disciplinary suspension.

The issue surfaced during the meeting’s public comment period, when Britney Sills, identifying herself as a parent, told the board an educator named “Mr. Evan Gold” posted on a teachers’ Facebook page that he “hopes the unvaccinated die quickly.” Sills said the comment was posted on Sept. 9 and that the teacher had since been reinstated. “There should be 0 tolerance for this type of behavior from individuals commissioned with the education of our children,” Sills said.

Several other speakers echoed Sills’ call for removal. Judith Chappell, who identified multiple civic roles including precinct committee woman for the county Republican Party, said the comments were “a chilling betrayal” and told the board, “He must be removed from his position immediately.” Tanya Kaskin described the posts as “wishing death on members of our community” and asked the board to act.

Board attorney Blocker told the board that the district has a policy, “1148.01,” governing disciplinary suspension without pay and that the board has, by policy, delegated some personnel authority to the superintendent. “This particular employee was referred to [Professional Practice Services]. They will conduct their own investigation,” Blocker said, adding that the state can decide whether to pursue licensure action. “So, again, at this point, it’s in their hands to evaluate whether…his career should end as a teacher license in Florida.”

Superintendent Broski said the district investigated the matter before suspension, that multiple attorneys reviewed the investigation, and that the substantiated facts were referred to state professional-practice investigators. “The matter is in their hands now,” Broski said.

Board members debated whether to revisit policy language to give the board more direct review in some cases. Several members asked the attorney to bring back an opinion and comparative examples from other counties before any policy changes, and the board chair proposed placing the topic on a future workshop agenda. “We may have instances where we have to bring a policy back to discuss it,” the chair said.

The board did not take a public vote to terminate or reinstate the employee during the meeting. The public record at the meeting shows a short suspension by the superintendent and the referral to state professional-practice investigators; any discipline or employment decisions beyond that referral will depend on the continuing state review and on any future district proceedings.

Speakers at the meeting framed their requests as calls to protect students and staff trust in the schools. Several asked the board to clarify how disciplinary authority is exercised and whether the board should have more immediate review in particularly sensitive cases. Board attorney Blocker and the superintendent said the existing policy delegated certain personnel actions to the superintendent because of the volume of routine personnel matters and the timing of board meetings, but agreed to return with options for revised language.

The board did not announce a timetable for that workshop discussion. The Professional Practice Services investigation is a state process and the district said it will await the state’s findings before any further local action tied to licensure.