Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves sheriff road‑patrol extension after contentious debate over cost and notice
Summary
After hours of debate and failed amendment and postponement motions, the Hartland school board approved a Livingston County sheriff road‑patrol extension by a 4–3 vote, amid disagreement over whether the district should subsidize township policing and calls for greater intermunicipal cost‑sharing.
The Hartland Consolidated Schools Board of Education voted 4–3 to approve an extension of Livingston County sheriff road‑patrol services to cover school safety needs, despite sustained opposition from several trustees who said the district should not fund municipal policing.
Trustee John Scott led the opposition, saying administration had not provided clear proof the township had been engaged and arguing the district would be “subsidizing Hartland Township’s public‑safety bill” at the expense of classroom resources. “I don’t understand the purpose of taking $60,000 out of the classroom to subsidize Hartland Township’s program,” Scott said during debate.
Trustees Jason Keller and Gerald Campbell, who worked with administration to review the contract, said administration and township officials had discussed terms and that a negotiated contribution had evolved through multiple meetings. “We had collaborative conversations and prepared answers to the board’s questions,” Keller said, urging the board to finalize the budget‑year plan. Trustees Coleman, Shaw and Campbell voted to approve the contract; Scott, Keller (in an earlier position) and Gogolevski registered no votes on the initial motions and amendments but the final roll call resulted in passage.
The vote followed two failed procedures: a motion to postpone the item to August (with July discussion) did not pass, and a later motion to reduce the district’s share to 5% of the proposed contract also failed. Trustees who supported postponement and amendments said they wanted township representatives at the table to answer questions and to explore whether neighboring municipalities could share costs.
Superintendent Hughes confirmed district staff had discussed the proposal with township representatives and county contacts; he said administration would continue outreach to clarify operational details and to pursue potential cost recovery from other municipalities. The board discussed follow‑up steps, including requesting township officials attend a future meeting and seeking written agreements clarifying operational expectations.
Outcome: the contract motion passed by roll call (Yes: Coleman, Shaw, Campbell, President Glaback; No: Scott, Gogolevski, Keller). The board asked staff to continue discussions with township and county officials and return with additional details during budget‑year planning.
