Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Schools Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council holds over school resource officer contract amid requests for data and training details
Summary
Council voted to hold over Resolution R25-52, which would extend the school resource officer (SRO) agreement for the 2025–26 school year, after members requested updated data, training information and time to consult the school district.
The Binghamton City Council held over a resolution (R25-52) on Aug. 27 that would extend the agreement placing school resource officers (SROs) in city schools for the 2025–26 academic year. Members said they needed updated data and clarity on training and role definitions before approving a renewal.
Why it matters: The extension would fund three SROs — one each at East and West middle schools and one at Binghamton High School — and affects how the district staffs safety, discipline and student support roles as the school year begins.
Discussion highlights Council member Madovetsky, who introduced the resolution, said the contract would provide three SROs and that some teachers she contacted reported positive experiences, including de-escalation and student relationships.
Opponents and those seeking more information urged caution. Council members said there was no clear evidence in the meeting record that SROs reduce school violence or improve outcomes, and they asked for data on program objectives, student- and staff-survey results, and details on what specialized training officers receive for school assignments.
Timing and procedural notes Council members discussed logistical constraints: the prior agreement’s term had expired June 30 and schools were starting in early September. Possible interim steps mentioned included a short memorandum of understanding to preserve continuity or scheduling a committee meeting and a special business meeting to consider the contract with additional information.
Outcome A motion to hold the resolution over was made and seconded; the chair announced it would be held over until the next business meeting. No roll-call vote on the underlying contract was taken at the Aug. 27 meeting.
What was not decided The council did not adopt any metrics, training requirements or a final vote. Several members suggested inviting the school superintendent to a committee meeting and obtaining updated survey and outcome data before taking a final vote.
