Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sro Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burke County, school leaders agree to keep negotiating SRO agreement after insurance and liability concerns
Summary
County commissioners and school officials discussed a proposed School Resource Officer agreement, with school attorneys and the county attorney clarifying insurance coverage and commissioners asking for a stronger hold-harmless clause; staff were directed to continue negotiations before returning the agreement to both boards.
Burke County commissioners and representatives of the local school system met to continue negotiating a proposed School Resource Officer (SRO) agreement that would reimburse the county for SRO costs and clarify liability and insurance coverage.
The meeting included the school superintendent, school board representatives and the county attorney. County Attorney Mr. Heider said the school system’s insurance “covers the SROs,” including errors-and-omissions exposures. Commissioners pressed for clearer contract language after spotting a clause that said the school district "is not responsible for the acts of the SROs," which several said could leave the county exposed for lawsuits arising from SRO activities at overtime events, special duties or sports events.
Commissioners asked for a stronger hold-harmless provision and for the agreement to explicitly state the school system’s reimbursement responsibilities, including overtime and special-event coverage. One commissioner summarized the concern as the county ending up “picking more of the expense up” over time and asked staff to draft language that would make the school fully liable for costs tied to SRO conduct where the school is responsible.
No formal vote was taken. Commissioners directed staff to continue working with school staff, the school system attorney and county attorneys to revise the draft, exchange edits by email and return a negotiated agreement to each board for approval before the proposed start date. Staff said the boards’ next meeting dates provide time to finalize the language before implementation.
The discussion centered on contract language and allocation of costs; commissioners did not adopt a final agreement at the meeting and left the document open for further editing and legal review.
