The Charlottesville City Schools Board of Education voted on March 27 to implement a School Resource Officer (SRO) model and directed district staff to proceed with drafting a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to define the SRO role, training and responsibilities.

The item prompted extended discussion, public comment and a sequence of procedural motions. Public speakers included Alex Heintzeman, a parent who urged the board to discontinue the SRO process and cited local research showing racial disparities in police outcomes; and other community members who urged the board to pause rezoning or requested more time on other items. Staff presenters said the board must choose whether to continue the process, to postpone until completion of a longer review, or to discontinue it.

Staff description of status: Ms. Powell, the staff presenter, described a multi-step process the board had previously authorized to examine a school resource-officer model and draft an MOU. She said staff had completed the first step — a large staff working group — and that further steps would include additional stakeholder work and drafting an MOU if the board chose to proceed. Powell told the board the Charlottesville Police Department (CPD) provided resources and technical input but had said it would refrain from participating in the working group until the board indicated whether it wanted an SRO model.

Public comment and concerns: Alex Heintzeman, who identified himself as a parent, argued against SROs and said national research and local criminal justice data show risks of policing in schools, including disproportionate impacts on Black, Brown and disabled students. He said, “there is no model that can magically transform an officer into a social worker,” and urged the board to discontinue the SRO process.

Board debate and motions: Several board members asked clarifying questions about CPD engagement, the difference between routine CPD protocols and a formal MOU tied to SROs, and who would sign or implement any MOU. Multiple board members moved to postpone the decision: one motion sought a delay until May 1, 2025 (an amendment), and an earlier motion sought postponement until October. The amendment to move the vote to May 1 was seconded but failed on a roll call. After procedural votes, a motion to implement a school resource officer model was moved and seconded and the board held a roll-call vote.

Final vote and outcome: The motion to implement a SRO model passed on a recorded vote. The voting board members recorded in the meeting were: Miss Burns (yes), Mr. Meyer (yes), Mr. Morse (yes), Ms. Richardson (no), Ms. Torres (no), and Ms. Dooley (yes). The board directed the superintendent to draft the MOU and to present a recommended MOU and any related budget implications at a later date.

Staff cautioned that CPD representatives said they would review drafts and technical questions but had declined to participate in the working-group meetings until the board signaled that it wanted SROs and an MOU; staff said they would not present an MOU to the board without CPD review. The board also discussed whether two board members should serve on the staff working group going forward to inform the MOU drafting process.

What was not decided: The board did not approve an MOU at this meeting, and no MOU text was presented or signed. Several board members asked for clearer, measurable outcomes and data-driven measures to evaluate either CSAs (current model) or a potential SRO program going forward.

Next steps: The superintendent and staff were directed to continue work on a draft MOU in cooperation with CPD, return with a recommended MOU and any budget implications, and provide opportunities for community input as the draft is developed.