Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Resources Sro topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates SRO memorandum of understanding; trustees ask 3‑by‑3 to reconvene
Summary
Trustees discussed a draft memorandum of understanding with Santa Rosa Police for a school resource officer pilot. Key areas of disagreement included whether SROs must complete specialized training before campus deployment and whether SRO involvement should be limited to "last resort" discipline cases.
The Santa Rosa City Schools Board of Education on Jan. 22 held an extended discussion about a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Santa Rosa Police Department to reintroduce a school resource officer (SRO) pilot program.
Board members, district staff and members of the public debated two central issues: training requirements for SROs and whether SRO involvement in school discipline should be treated as a last resort. Trustees also discussed oversight, data collection and protections for immigrant students in light of recent federal immigration enforcement developments.
Several trustees said they wanted SROs to complete comprehensive, SRO‑specific training before being placed on campus. Trustee Medina said: “If you're gonna be on campus, have the training. Without the training, you're not an SRO.” Trustee Manieri urged the MOU to include independent oversight and mandatory reporting of SRO‑student interactions disaggregated by race and socioeconomic status.
Other trustees pressed for a practical timeline and said training availability could create delays. Trustee Kirby noted that parts of the department’s SRO training are offered only at certain times of year and suggested a compromise that would allow deployment when officers are substantially trained and scheduled for remaining modules.
Public comment on the MOU split along familiar lines: parents and some community members urged the board to approve SROs, citing past campus violence and the desire for additional safety resources. Several community members, unions and civil‑rights advocates opposed the MOU or asked for stronger restrictions, saying SRO presence can deter immigrant families and lead to criminalization of students. Speakers asked for a written, anonymous complaint process and quarterly independent reviews of the pilot.
Trustees agreed to direct the district and the city to reconvene the 3‑by‑3 committee — the joint working group of district and city leaders — to resolve outstanding language in the draft MOU and to ask legal teams on both sides to review proposed edits. Trustees asked staff to return an updated MOU draft to the 3‑by‑3 and to the board; they also asked the superintendent and city leadership to set a near‑term meeting date.
Superintendent Dr. Daisy Morales said staff would compile the board’s comments and provide them to the 3‑by‑3 for the next meeting. Trustees did not vote on an MOU at the Jan. 22 session.
