School board schedules expanded public engagement on SRO MOU after heated public comment; members press for data on cost, staffing and oversight

The Charlottesville City School Board on Sept. 9 did not vote to adopt or reject a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would restore school resource officers to division schools, but it directed staff and the existing SRO working group to expand community engagement and produce additional documentation and clarifications before the MOU is finalized.

The discussion followed more than an hour of public comment in the media center and over Zoom in which teachers, parents, students and community members urged either a pause or a complete rethink of the plan. Shannon Gilligan, who identified herself in the meeting as speaking for both herself and school staff, told the board: “This proposal would cost $800,000 the first year and 3 to $400,000 every year after.” Several other speakers urged the board to slow the process, expand outreach and include teachers, students and parents in frontline decisionmaking.

Beth Chuck, a member of central office staff who presented the district’s engagement plan, told the board the division had scheduled about 15 meetings in September and October — a mix of public “info hours,” two staff‑only sessions and targeted student engagements — and that feedback from a Google form and the public forum would be folded into the MOU or an accompanying standard operating procedure (SOP). “We have scheduled about 15 events in September and October,” Chuck said, describing weekly SRO information hours at varied times and locations and student tabling and impact sessions.

Why it matters: The SRO issue has split parents, staff and students and intersected with broader local debates about policing, housing and youth safety. Board members said they want specific, answerable documentation on staffing levels, budget impacts and oversight mechanisms before the MOU is finalized and sent to city council for any required funding.

What board members asked for and what was directed

- Data and staffing rationale: Several board members asked the working group to produce a short, written explanation of how the division arrived at the proposed number of SROs (the MOU’s current operational proposal calls for four positions). Board member Amanda Torres requested “the data to justify the 4 FTEs,” and the board asked the working group to return a one‑ or two‑page rationale explaining the calculation and assumptions.

- Budget clarity: Commenters and board members repeatedly referenced an estimated first‑year cost in the $800,000–$900,000 range, and asked whether the recurring costs and any ancillary requests (for example, police academy backfill) were included. Torres noted the funds were anticipated to come from the Charlottesville Police Department’s budget; the superintendent confirmed city colleagues indicated an August 2026 implementation would fit the city budget timeline if the city appropriated funds.

- Complaint and oversight mechanisms: Board members and public commenters asked for clear, confidential avenues for students and staff to report SRO interactions and for clarity on which oversight bodies would receive and review complaints.

- Body cameras and use‑of‑force rules: Community members asked whether SROs would wear body cameras and how footage would be handled. The board directed staff to clarify camera policy language either in the MOU or in the SOP.

Public testimony and student views

Dozens of residents, teachers and parents spoke during the public comment period. Key speakers included: - Shannon Gilligan (community member / school staff): criticized the process and raised the cost estimate quoted above; urged the board to pause the MOU rather than proceed. - Emily Kingsley (Charlottesville teacher and community member): summarized national reporting and research urging investment in restorative programs rather than SROs, and urged a pause to solicit broad community input. - Alex Heintzeman (parent of two Charlottesville students): said the MOU “does nothing to protect our kids’ civil liberties” and lacks complaint and evaluation mechanisms. - Ziona Bryant (community member / walkout organizer 2019): said the timeline presented to the public omitted earlier student‑led protests and urged the board to center student voices. - Solly (student representative, junior at Charlottesville High School): told the board students are divided but “students feel like SROs could be a possible way to solve” problems while also expressing “very, very large” concerns about negative consequences.

Staff presentations and next steps

- Engagement timeline: Chuck said staff would continue to receive feedback through the Google form, weekly info hours, student tabling and targeted meetings; staff expect training and hiring to occur in spring with an August 2026 operational target if funding is approved by the city.

- Working group tasks: Miss Swift and the board asked the SRO working group to (a) prepare a concise rationale and data package explaining the proposed SRO staffing level, (b) summarize current police interactions in schools, (c) clarify whether body cameras will be required and how footage will be handled, and (d) recommend a confidential reporting mechanism for students and staff. The working group is also to review public responses (52 Google‑form submissions were noted at one point in the meeting) and fold repeated suggestions into the MOU or the SOP as appropriate.

What the meeting did not decide

The board did not approve or reject the MOU at the Sept. 9 meeting. Several members said they remained supportive of returning SROs provided the MOU and SOP contain explicit limits, oversight, complaint pathways and strong training; others reiterated concerns about racial inequities and the potential chilling effect of policing in schools.

Ending: The board scheduled additional public and staff engagement sessions through October and asked the working group to return to the board with a one‑page staffing and budget rationale and proposed language addressing body cameras and reporting by the end of October, ahead of any final board action or the city’s budget cycle.