Stoughton board considers intergovernmental agreement to assign a Student Resource Officer

The Stoughton Area School District Board of Education on an evening meeting discussed a draft intergovernmental agreement with the City of Stoughton and Stoughton Police Department to assign a Student Resource Officer (SRO) to district schools.

The discussion focused on the SRO’s duties, training, selection and supervision, metrics and reporting, funding and timeline. Mayor Tim Swatley and Chief Dan Jenks joined district staff to explain the draft three-part package: an intergovernmental agreement, an SRO assignment description and a model policy drawn from Neola. No final vote was taken; the board will consider the draft agreement at its June 2 meeting and would treat the policy as a separate action item.

Board members asked for clearer training commitments, baseline metrics and protections for students with disabilities. Chief Dan Jenks said the city and department expect a 50/50 cost split and provided an annual cost estimate: “Well, so under our current contract, the costs for a officer annually with full benefits ... $130,000 annually,” which the chief said would imply roughly a $65,000 annual share for the district if the split is applied.

The draft agreement that district staff circulated would: 1) define the SRO as an assigned police officer (the agreement uses the phrasing student/staff resource officer), 2) set the initial agreement term at three years with renewal and a 30‑day early-termination provision, 3) require a minimum annual report to the board and 4) describe training expectations while leaving some specifics flexible so trainings can adapt over time. The board and city representatives said the flexibility was intentional; legal reviewers asked for broader training language so the agreement would not freeze specific curricula that might become obsolete.

Selected procedural and oversight points in the draft and in the discussion: - Supervision and chain of command: the agreement says the SRO is an employee of the police department and supervised by the department, but when the SRO is inside a building they follow building administration direction. Board members sought clearer, written escalation steps so staff know to call building administrators first and not the SRO for classroom discipline issues. - Training and professional development: the draft states each employer will cover professional development for their respective SRO; city and district leaders said routine SRO and Office of School Safety trainings would be expected and that additional, district-requested trainings could be cost‑shared. Mayor Swatley and Chief Jenks described plans for SRO basic training, state SRO conferences and ride-along opportunities before placement. - Scope of duties: the agreement expressly excludes the SRO from providing academic guidance or counseling and directs the officer to refer students to school-based counselors or pupil services for mental-health support. The draft also says the SRO should not intervene in student discipline matters that do not present an immediate threat to safety. - Reporting and metrics: the draft requires a mutually approved daily activity log and at least an annual report to the board summarizing SRO activity and recommendations; board members asked for baseline data on prior police–school contacts so they can compare pre- and post-SRO measures. - Selection process: the agreement gives the police chief final hiring authority but allows the district to interview interested officers and provide feedback. Board members asked for a clear, collaborative selection process involving district staff, parents or other stakeholders. - Timeline and funding: Mayor Tim Swatley described the city’s internal review steps — personnel committee, a public safety committee meeting and finance committee review — and noted the city’s budget calendar as the reason the earliest sustainable start date would be July 1 or at the start of the next budget cycle. City and police officials said they are looking for funding mechanisms and will pursue grants if available, but cautioned grants are often one-time funds.

Board members repeatedly raised concerns about students with disabilities and how an SRO should respond to dysregulated behavior. The board asked for explicit plans showing how building administrators, pupil services (counselors, social workers, school psychologists) and the SRO would coordinate so officers can distinguish immediate threats from disability-related behavior that requires school-based responses rather than law enforcement action. District leaders said the SRO would be expected to work closely with pupil services staff and that the annual report would include training completed and engagement with building teams.

Mayor Swatley said the city is preparing legal review and committee timelines and could bring the agreement to its council depending on the board’s direction. Chief Jenks and city staff said multiple officers have expressed interest and that the department would identify internal candidates first; a filled SRO position would require backfilling that officer’s prior assignment.

Next steps: the board plans to consider the draft intergovernmental agreement at its June 2 meeting. The Neola-based policy would come back to the board as a separate item to ensure the policy’s language and the agreement align. Board members asked district staff to prepare baseline metrics on prior police–school contacts and to circulate a proposed reporting template before the June 2 meeting.