Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Security Arms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Three Village board hears broad opposition and safety concerns about arming school security
Summary
Board discussion and public comments focused on whether to arm school security; administrators, board members and dozens of public speakers debated metal detectors, cost, response-time and psychological effects, with many parents and community members urging alternatives.
The Three Village Central School District Board of Education spent substantial time on Oct. 3 discussing whether to arm district security staff, hearing detailed testimony from administrators, board members and dozens of public commenters who largely opposed weaponizing school campuses.
Superintendent Dr. Scott Scanlon reported ongoing negotiations with the district’s security and administrative units and said the district has received many community responses both for and against arming staff. He also said the district compiled articles and survey results for a web page the board can consult.
Former law-enforcement speaker Mister Baum, who the board invited to speak, said he personally supports metal detectors in places such as arenas but opposed placing them in district schools. “I love them. I actually do. But in Madison Square Garden, not in 3 Village, and I'll tell you why,” Baum said, listing staffing burdens, multiple entrances, start-time delays and concern for the safety of unarmed staff who might face an armed confrontational assailant.
Board member Sue raised procedural, fiscal and safety objections to arming staff and emphasized long-term risk. “Armed guards are fundamentally different than other security measures,” she said. “Having armed guards, however, requires the continuous presence of deadly force, and this comes with some level of risk of human error.” She also noted the likely recurring cost and trade-offs with instructional staffing.
Board members and administrators discussed alternatives and logistics: single-point entry, improved access control, metal detectors or x-ray machines at main entrances, threat-assessment teams, expanded mental-health supports and additional counselors. Scanlon cautioned that response times for Suffolk County police differ from neighboring Nassau County and said geography and patrol coverage are relevant to planning.
Cost estimates and insurance implications featured in the discussion. Scanlon stated an approximate annual cost for armed security was “around $200,000,” and multiple speakers asked the board to consult insurers and consider liability exposure. Several public commenters, including Susan Blake, Christine Latham and Sarah Huda, told the board they would withhold future budget support if armed guards were adopted and urged investing in metal detectors, access control and mental-health services instead.
Public comment included personal testimony and citations of research. “Metal detectors, advanced technology, and security protocols are far more effective at actually preventing an incident than armed guards,” Christine Latham said, citing Uniondale High School’s recent detection of a loaded firearm by a metal detector. Several letters read into the record argued that campuses with armed guards have had higher casualty rates in past incidents and documented mishandled firearms on campuses.
No final decision was made at the meeting. Board members asked administration to continue compiling evidence, costs, insurance advice and policies so the board can discuss specific proposals at future meetings.
