Garland resident says revised SRO MOU bypassed council budget process, urges full reimbursement by school district

Bob Duckworth, a Garland resident, told the City of Garland Audit Committee on Sept. 30 that a recently signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) covering the city’s School Resource Officer (SRO) program did not follow the discussion path he expected and may have bypassed the council’s budget process.

Duckworth said he attended the June 24 meeting where the committee discussed whether to audit the SRO program and that the consensus at that time was to include the SRO MOU in the budget process so the City Council could consider any amendments. “My understanding is this is going to go through the budget process and Chief is going to provide the details for the City Council to make appropriate amendments or changes to the contract,” Duckworth said. He told the committee the new MOU was signed “on September 25–26 by Chief Bridal and City Manager Rex” and, in his view, did not come through the council work session or budget process as previously discussed.

Duckworth said he is not opposed to SROs but criticized the allocation of costs in the program. Using rounded figures he said the SRO program’s total annual cost is “somewhere in the round number $7,000,000” and that reimbursements from Garland ISD total about $4,000,000–$5,000,000, leaving the city paying roughly $2,000,000–$3,000,000. He also urged clearer contract language on vehicle maintenance and overtime, saying the new draft MOU’s 50/50 split on vehicle maintenance lacks specificity about annual per-vehicle costs and how overtime or “extra duty” payments should be routed.

Duckworth recommended that reimbursements, including overtime, should go to the city rather than being paid directly to officers by the school district. “All monies including overtime should be handled on a reimbursement to the City by the district and no direct payment to SROs,” he said.

Committee members responded during public comment time that they could not formally discuss the item as a body but thanked Duckworth for raising concerns and said staff would look into the questions he posed. Legal staff reminded the committee that public comment is an opportunity to speak and that committee members may ask questions but may not carry on a deliberation at that time.

The committee did not take any formal action on Duckworth’s remarks during the meeting. No vote or formal referral is recorded in the meeting transcript; staff said they would follow up and look into the issues raised.

Ending: The Audit Committee moved on to consideration of scheduled audit reports after the public-comment period. Duckworth’s request that the SRO MOU be traced through the budget and council processes is now on record and staff said they would investigate his concerns.