Board discusses proposed school resource officer agreement; staff to draft multi‑year contract with opt‑out and reporting provisions

Dr. Dan Kieser, the district administrator, updated the Stoughton Area School District Board of Education on preliminary negotiations with the city and police department about reinstating a school resource officer (SRO) for the 2025–26 school year.

Kieser said the district and police met with Chief Jenks and Sergeant Sargent and that city leaders told the district any approved SRO position would need backfilling in the police department. Kieser said the parties are discussing a three‑year agreement with opt‑out language rather than a one‑year term with extensions: “we are having conversations about a 3 year agreement with opt out language if things aren't going in a manner that is commensurate with our expectations.”

Board members asked multiple operational and oversight questions. Topics covered in the discussion included: - Selection: Kieser said the district would have a seat on the interview panel and the district would participate in candidate selection once the agreement is approved. “There is nothing about the selection process that there were any issues on,” he said, adding the district would be “in control of who would be sitting there.” - Position description and schedule: Kieser said no final position description had been drafted yet. The SRO’s schedule would broadly align with the teacher contract and district hours; details about overtime, coverage of professional learning days and prorating if the officer is absent remain to be finalized. - Reporting and data: Board members asked for more frequent implementation updates beyond an annual report. Kieser said an annual report is a contractual minimum but more frequent reports could be required: “If we want to do more reports, we could certainly do that.” He described typical report elements other districts use — demographic data about interactions, date, alleged incident types and similar items — and noted statewide constraints on publishing small‑cell data per DPI rules. - Training: The police department has recommended trainings; Kieser said training costs and responsibility (district, city, or shared) still must be negotiated and factored into the cost share. - Oversight: Board members requested an oversight process for serious incidents (for example, incidents involving physical restraint), including a review panel to debrief and identify prevention measures. Kieser said district incident reporting obligations to DPI (seclusion/restraint reporting) would apply and he would follow up to confirm oversight procedures and reporting requirements.

Several board members asked that a detailed draft of the proposed agreement, including proposed training, reporting and cost‑share language, be placed in board documents before further discussion. Sharon asked that the mayor and police chief attend the meeting when the board considers a draft.

Kieser said the draft would go through legal review before being posted to the board packet and that the district would coordinate city and police participation for a future meeting. No formal vote occurred; the board requested staff develop the draft agreement and return with a review meeting including city officials.