Saint Louis Park board approves SRO contract with June 2026 review; 5-1 vote

The Saint Louis Park School Board on Sept. 30 approved a contract with the City of Saint Louis Park to place School Resource Officers (SROs) in district schools and added an amendment requiring the contract to expire on June 30, 2026, unless earlier terminated. The final approval passed by a 5-1 vote after an earlier procedural amendment setting the end date was adopted unanimously, 6-0.

Board members debated the contract for more than an hour, focusing on three areas: how and when SROs engage in student disciplinary situations, limits on use of force (including prone restraints), and protections for student data privacy. Superintendent Dr. Hines presented the contract language, saying the document “talks about the use of prone restraints … focusing on de-escalation techniques” and noting that a clause addressing use-of-force language was added to meet statutory minimums.

Why it matters: Board members said they need clearer evidence that an on-site SRO program will improve student safety without producing harmful outcomes for historically marginalized students, students with disabilities, or students who are neurodivergent. Several board members said the district has operated with SROs in buildings without a written governing agreement for the past year, and that a time-limited contract would allow the district to collect data and reassess.

Key details - Contract term and amendment: The board voted to add language to Paragraph 1 making the agreement effective Oct. 1, 2025, and to remain in effect until June 30, 2026, unless terminated sooner under the contract’s 90-day termination provision. Director Davidson proposed a one-year review window and sought the explicit June 30, 2026 end date; Dr. Hines said “it makes sense to me that the end date be 06/30/2026.” - Vote totals: The amendment to add the end date passed 6-0. The subsequent approval of the contract, with the end-date amendment in place, passed 5-1. - Dissent: One board member, Director Saracis, said she would not support the contract in its present form, citing concerns about data privacy, the potential for over-policing and the limits of contract language when SROs are “law enforcement officers first.” In discussion she said, “I don't feel comfortable at this juncture … I wouldn't be supportive of this motion tonight.” - Training and accountability: Board members and district staff said the agreement will be accompanied by joint training for SROs and building administrators and by expanded reporting requirements. The board requested a formal data and reporting framework for incidents, discipline referrals, and climate surveys to be compiled after the 2025–26 school year.

Legal and policy context - Board and staff repeatedly referenced state law requirements that SRO agreements include minimum statements about restraints and use-of-force; the contract language was updated to include that statutory minimum. - The presentation also referenced district Policy 509 (arrests at school) as relevant background for how criminal procedures and school discipline intersect.

Discussion versus decision - Discussion: Board members raised unresolved issues about who leads investigations of alleged criminal conduct involving students, what student information law enforcement can access, and whether statutory limits would prevent stronger local prohibitions on some restraints. - Direction: The board required the administration to collect and report data on SRO interactions, training completed, and discipline outcomes for review before any further contract extension. - Decision: Approve SRO contract with the added June 30, 2026 sunset unless terminated earlier; contract adopted 5-1 with the amendment adopted 6-0.

What comes next District staff will compile incident and climate data from the 2025–26 school year and present findings to the board. Several members requested a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss use-of-force language, the board’s expectations for SROs, and community concerns before the district considers extending or replacing the contract.