Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debate over unarmed security contract highlights division on school safety strategy
Summary
Board members split over a proposed contract for unarmed security personnel; superintendent recommended the temporary measure as an added layer while continuing to pursue armed SRO coverage. A motion to extend debate failed and the superintendent withdrew his recommendation after board amendments were proposed.
The Moore County Board of Education on Monday engaged in a contentious debate about a proposed contract to provide unarmed security personnel at some school sites, exposing deep divisions among board members about the district’s security strategy.
Superintendent Tim Locklear said the proposal was intended as an additional layer of protection for schools that do not yet have full-time armed law-enforcement coverage and that the contract includes flexibility to end services with short notice if the district can hire more armed school resource officers. “This is not an either or proposition,” Locklear said. “This is an and position proposition,” he told the board.
Several board members and community speakers strongly opposed the plan. Board member Pauline Bruno said the proposal “is an enormous waste of money,” calling the unarmed personnel “hall monitors” and questioning the value of unarmed staff in an active-shooter situation. Board member David Hensley raised a list of contract-related questions, including whether law-enforcement experience should be required and whether the selection process met competitive standards. Hensley also said he was concerned by what he described as a $344,000 no-bid contract to a firm with limited school-security experience.
Community commenters and one board member urged a broader, multi-agency approach. Board member Benway recommended forming a school security council with the county commissioners, the sheriff and state legislators, and argued that “Unarmed security contractors cannot provide the required level of protection.” The board’s temporary safety subcommittee had previously reviewed a recommendation from staff and a vendor presentation, but several members and members of the public said the committee’s work left many open questions.
Board members attempted to extend the time available for debate; the motion to suspend a 10-minute debate limit failed. Several amendments were then proposed to the draft contract (for example, making prior law-enforcement experience mandatory). After multiple proposed amendments and public feedback, the superintendent withdrew his recommendation so staff could reconsider the scope and the contract language.
No final contract vote was taken. The discussion left in place the board’s stated goal of expanding armed coverage in schools while also prompting calls from board members and community leaders for a more comprehensive, countywide approach to school safety that would address recruitment, pay and partnering with sheriff’s office resources.
Board members asked staff to follow up with clearer cost estimates, contract revisions that reflect training standards and a plan for coordinating with county leaders. The item will return to the board at a later meeting.
