Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Schools Sro topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables vote on school resource officer contract after members seek clearer language on authority, training and cost sharing
Summary
Middletown City Council agreed July 1 to table action on a revised school resource officer (SRO) contract so staff and the law department can tighten language on arrest authority, training approval and how recent wage increases are included in the 75/25 school/city cost split.
Middletown City Council tabled consideration of a revised contract to provide four school resource officers to the Middletown City School District after members raised concerns about contractual language covering officer authority, required training and the calculation of shared personnel costs.
What led to the table The city and the school district negotiated a revised SRO contract for the 2025–26 school year that would place four SROs in district schools with the district paying 75% of employment costs and the city responsible for 25% when school is not in session. Council discussion highlighted three principal concerns:
1) Arrest and operational authority: Council members wanted explicit language confirming that SROs, not school administrators, hold sole discretion to make arrests. One council member told the meeting that prior contract wording had been interpreted to give schools veto power over arrests, and asked that the contract clearly vest arrest decisions with the officer in accordance with law enforcement practice.
2) Training approval: A clause said SROs must attend “annual training approved by the school district.” Council asked the city law department and school negotiators to revise that language so training is mutually agreed and the police chief retains authority to approve necessary law‑enforcement training.
3) Cost‑sharing and recent wage changes: Patrol officers received an 8.8% salary increase effective Nov. 1, 2024 and an additional 4.5% scheduled for Nov. 1, 2025; councilors asked that the contract explicitly state how recent and upcoming wage adjustments are included in the district’s 75% share and the municipal 25% responsibility for non‑school periods.
Outcome and next steps Council voted to table the item and asked the law department and city staff to revise the contract language and return with a clarified draft. Planning for four SROs continues; the school board had voted 4–1 in favor of the revised contract, with one member preferring five SROs.
Ending Councilors emphasized both child safety and officer discretion in enforcement; tabling the contract will allow staff and legal counsel to align the contract with department policies and budget calculations before a final vote.
