Stoughton board authorizes district administrator to draft agreement for school resource officer after divided public comment

The Stoughton Area School District Board of Education voted to authorize the district administrator to develop an agreement with the City of Stoughton and/or the Stoughton Police Department for a school resource officer (SRO) beginning in the 2025–26 school year. The motion passed on a roll-call vote, six in favor, two opposed, with one member excused.

The board action followed more than an hour of public comment and extended board discussion in which students, parents and community members offered sharply divided views on whether the district should restore a sworn officer on campus. A group of students from the newly formed Ethics Club urged safety upgrades and described how an SRO could be part of a broader set of supports; other speakers and written commenters warned that placing police in schools can increase disciplinary actions and harm groups already overpoliced.

Why this matters: The vote directs the district administrator to negotiate and draft a contractual agreement that the board would later review and approve. Speakers pressed the board to include explicit guardrails in any agreement—requirements on training, plain clothes vs. uniform, role boundaries, data collection and annual reporting—while opponents urged investment in counselors and restorative practices instead of policing.

Student presenters and proposals

Students from Stoughton’s Ethics Club presented several school-safety ideas and described how an SRO could fit into student life. Student speaker Alex Thiesen (signed up as “Alex Gleeson” in the meeting sign-up) said the club supports automatic locking doors to reduce decision-making during emergencies. Charlotte Shepherd, co‑founder of the Ethics Club, asked the board to consider panic-button devices for staff, electronic hall passes to help locate students during drills, and vape detectors to address widespread vaping in restrooms. Student representative Lily reported that the club invited the district’s buildings and grounds supervisor to discuss these ideas and extended an invitation for board members to attend the club’s meetings.

Several student presenters also described how they thought an SRO should interact with students. Andrew Quam said students would prefer an SRO who wears casual clothing rather than a visible uniform and firearm, and he said the SRO should be trained to provide counseling resources rather than only enforcement. Quam also asked for collaboration between administrators and officers so that discipline decisions can be balanced between school and law-enforcement responses.

Public comment: supporters and opponents

Several parents and community members urged the board to reinstate an SRO. Jessica Royko told the board: "Please give our kids, teachers, staff, and families back the security and support of a resource officer." Supporters argued an SRO improves communication with police, provides mentorship, and frees administrators to focus on counseling and instructional work.

Opponents and several written commenters cited research they said shows no clear link between armed officers in schools and reduced active-shooter incidents and warned of disproportionate disciplinary impacts on Black, Brown, LGBTQ+ and disabled students. Written public comment read into the record by the board included statements from Sydney Conant and Lori Ford Hercules urging investment in counselors, librarians and proven de-escalation strategies rather than policing. Nicole Gordon described a prior incident in which her child was questioned without a parent present and said the experience was traumatizing; she urged a more supportive, familiar response to students.

Board discussion and requested contract elements

District Administrator Dan (name given in the meeting; last name not provided in the record) framed the authorization as a direction to negotiate terms and return to the board with a draft agreement. Dan summarized points from an earlier discussion on Jan. 6 and said the board wants an SRO who builds relationships, mentors students, provides weekly visibility across schools, supports lessons such as digital-safety presentations, and operates under school administration direction.

Multiple board members asked procedural and substantive questions: whether the contract should be for one year or multiple years and whether the board would require specific data collection and reporting (discipline, seclusion/restraint, calls for service) to evaluate the role. Several trustees asked for an explicit provision requiring an annual report to the board and recommended including students on the hiring panel. Board member Dr. Sharon Mylan Bartlett raised concerns about racial bias in policing and asked how the district would codify protections for students; she said board policy, rather than informal assurances, should provide clear guardrails.

Some trustees supported pursuing an SRO with specified limits and oversight. Trustee Tim Buban and other supporters said an on-site liaison can help with safety logistics so counselors and administrators can focus on mental-health work. Trustees who opposed the measure said their preference was to invest in additional mental-health professionals rather than an officer.

Vote and next steps

The board authorized Dan to develop an agreement with the City of Stoughton and/or the Stoughton Police Department; the district administrator said he would bring a draft back to the board for review and that stakeholders, including the chief and mayor, would participate in drafting. The motion passed on a roll-call vote: Tim Buban, Zach Massa Myers, Dawn Garcia, Allison Sorg, Lisa Pugh and Jill Patterson voted yes; Mia (recorded as "Miss Corio" in the roll call) and Dr. Sharon Mylan Bartlett voted no; one member (Joe Frey) was excused.

Board members repeatedly requested that any future draft include specific data‑collection requirements and a short-term contract option so the district can assess effects and avoid long-term commitments without oversight. Several members also asked the administrator to schedule a public board learning session to allow stakeholders to hear from police, mental‑health professionals and community groups before final approval.

Ending: The board’s vote authorizes negotiation and drafting, not final approval. Any proposed contract will return to the board for review and a separate approval vote. Community members and board members said they expect to continue public conversation and to ask for explicit, codified protections, training standards and data reporting if an SRO contract is presented for final approval.