Board debates School Resource Officer contract renewal; no vote, requests more information

Assistant Superintendent Megan Dawson presented the district's proposed 2026–2028 school resource officer (SRO) interlocal agreement and said it is “in full compliance with Washington state law regarding school safety staff and SROs, including the engrossed substitute House Bill 1214 from 2021, and House Bill 1216 from 2019.” She said the agreement affirms training requirements, annual data reporting to the state (including incident details and demographic breakdowns), and an interlocal partnership with local law enforcement.

Board discussion focused on cost, vendor options, role clarity and timing. Several directors asked why the district had not solicited competitive proposals; one director noted the contract “has gone up significantly, and it goes up $10,000 a year.” Dawson said she had met with the Thurston County sheriff (referred to in the discussion as Sheriff Sanders), who indicated willingness to engage with the district but declined to compete with the city at that time and that he could provide a written declination if requested. Dawson said the city has been providing SROs and that the district shares the cost with the city.

Directors asked for clarification about when SROs cover events (athletics, graduations) and how SRO duties differ from patrol; Dawson said city leadership and the police chief had resisted language equating SRO duties with patrol and that officers assigned for paid patrol at events may not be the district’s SROs. Board members requested clearer contract language tying service expectations to events and asked staff to invite the sheriff and city representatives to a future meeting or work session.

Cost context and next steps - Cost questions: directors said the proposed contract represents a multi‑hundred‑thousand dollar commitment over three years for SRO coverage. One director described the district’s share as “a decent amount of money”; another said the three‑year total for two officers was described in discussion as “over 3 years for 2 officers” and noted the district reimburses the city for one officer. Staff agreed to provide more detail on the annual increases and options for a split arrangement. - Vendor options: Dawson said Sheriff Sanders was not opposed to providing a proposal but that his office’s timing and staffing constraints limited immediate competition with the city; the sheriff could provide a formal declination or meet to discuss a proposal if the board requested it. - Role clarity: directors asked staff to clarify the distinction between SRO duties (school safety, training, school‑specific responsibilities) and patrol duties (event staffing, general patrol), and to specify when the district would pay for officers to be present at events.

Discussion vs. decision - Discussion: extended exchange between board members and staff about costs, whether to solicit proposals, which law enforcement agency should provide SROs, and whether SRO duties should include event patrols. - Direction: staff were asked to schedule meetings with the city police chief and Sheriff Sanders, provide written proposals or declinations, and return with cost comparisons and contract language options (including alignment of contract dates to the school year). - Decision: no contract vote occurred at the meeting.

Speakers quoted in this article are included in the speaker list below. Ending: the board asked staff to pursue additional information and to bring city and county representatives to a work session for detailed discussion before any final decision.