Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board withdraws vote on SRO contract after members press for clearer staffing, overtime and billing terms
Summary
At its July 15 meeting the Martin County School Board withdrew a motion to approve the three‑year renewal for school resource officer services so members could get clearer answers on staffing counts, overtime and billing for floaters and substitutes.
The Martin County School Board on July 15 withdrew a pending vote to renew the school resource officer (SRO) agreement with the Martin County Sheriff’s Office after board members pressed for clearer terms on staffing levels, overtime approvals and how the district will be billed for unfilled positions.
Board members said they want written procedures and billing clarifications before approving the 2025–26 renewal. "I would like to have a procedure for approving, overtime outside, so and how how much time that involves so that we when we come back and look at," said Miss Powers, board member, during the discussion.
The request followed questions about how the district is charged when deputies assigned as SROs are absent, when deputies serve overtime for school events, and whether the contract includes two "floater" positions that may or may not be used. Miss Roberts asked whether the district should reduce payment if floaters are not assigned: "So to to make sure that I'm following you correctly, those are, what I believe to be the 2 floater positions to fill in for vacancies. I will seek clarification on whether we are paying for those 2 floaters regardless of whether they are being used or not," she said.
Board members noted a fixed monthly price in the contract and said they lack a reconciliation method if the district is not receiving the staffing level it contracted for. "So those are procedures that we can put in place and the clarification from the sheriff's office on what they are, what is included in that billing," said a staff speaker during the meeting.
The board’s discussion also included questions about who is responsible for school crossing guards and whether the district or the law‑enforcement agency with roadway jurisdiction should carry that responsibility. Miss Powers said she had researched legal opinions indicating jurisdictional responsibility lies with the law‑enforcement agency that controls the roads.
After extended discussion, the board moved to withdraw the pending action on item 18.06. The board did not adopt the renewal at the July 15 meeting and directed that clarifications be obtained and returned to the board before any final approval.
What the board asked staff and the sheriff's office to provide
- A written procedure and log for documenting SRO hours and any overtime charged to the district, with principal approval for event overtime. - Clarification of whether the monthly payment covers two floater deputies regardless of actual assignment and whether billing will be adjusted if floaters are unused. - Detail on substitute/coverage arrangements when an assigned SRO is absent and how that affects district costs. - A legal clarification on responsibility and funding for school crossing guards.
Why this matters
The SRO contract is a major recurring expense in the district budget; board members said they need a clear accountability method so the district pays only for services actually received. The board’s decision to pause the vote preserves the current contract provisions until clarifications are provided.
