Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables decision to convert SRO role after community praise for Percy Turner and county contract uncertainty
Summary
The RSU 10 board tabled action to replace a school resource officer (SRO) contract with a district‑employed school safety officer after public comments praising long‑time school officer Percy Turner and discussion that the Oxford County Sheriff's Office had not signed a renewal contract.
The RSU 10 School Board tabled a proposal to approve a district school safety officer position in place of an Oxford County Sheriff's Office school resource officer contract following public comment and continued negotiation with the sheriff’s office.
Multiple community members addressed the board in support of Percy Turner, who serves as the region’s school resource officer. Annette Caldwell, a teacher of 21 years at the district, said Turner "has never walked away from a difficult situation" and praised his calmness and availability. Resident Neil Austin said he has known Turner for decades and called him a person "that had character, that had wisdom, and that had great knowledge." Those public testimonials preceded the board’s personnel discussion.
Administrators said the district had a renewal contract from the Oxford County Sheriff’s Office that had been signed locally but not returned with sheriff’s signatures; the sheriff’s office later informed the district it would "look for somebody" but had not signed a contract. "I still have the contract," a district official said; "they have... said to me, they will look for somebody ... but I have yet to have them sign the contract."
The board considered a motion to approve a district school safety officer position (to replace the SRO arrangement). The motion was made and seconded, then another board member moved to table the item so the personnel committee could review the proposed job description under policy GCFR. The motion to table was seconded and approved by voice vote, postponing a final decision.
Board members said the committee review would allow examination of job duties, county staffing availability, and how a district position would interact with local law enforcement. Several board members urged outreach to the sheriff’s office and the community to seek clarity on staffing and continuity of the community‑policing model that has operated under the existing SRO arrangement.
No final vote to create a district position or to end the county contract occurred; the transcript records that the contract with the sheriff’s office was unsigned and that the sheriff’s office reported limited staff availability. The board directed personnel and policy committees to review the job description and report back.
