Elmbrook board approves after‑school SROs and site supervisors, funds to come from Fund 80

The Elmbrook School District board voted 4–3 to approve an after‑school security plan that adds two school resource officers (one at each high school) for the afternoon and evening and authorizes unarmed site supervisors at other school buildings as needed.

Superintendent Mark Hansen told the board the district is seeking approval “for an after school SRO at each high school and a site supervisor model,” and presented a cost estimate that includes roughly $236,250 for after‑school SRO wages and about $150,000 for site supervisors, a total near $388,350 to be paid from Fund 80, the district’s community‑service fund.

Hansen and school principals emphasized heavy evening use of buildings. Brookfield Central Principal Brett Gretzmacher described multiple simultaneous activities and entrances, saying evening traffic can leave many areas unsupervised and noting that “we have probably 3 to 400 people come through the building” on many nights. Pilgrim Park Principal Kelly Sesterniak said the district needs “someone there that can be that point person to ensure the safety and security” during after‑hours events.

Brookfield Police Chief Jim Adlam, who described initially opposing second‑shift SROs, said he reversed course after hearing national examples and consulting state school‑safety staff: “An SRO is a very well‑trained officer who’s there as a partial educator, as a mentor, really, a counselor to the kids,” he told the board, arguing SROs can help in situations beyond the role of a security guard.

Board debate centered on three questions: whether SROs or contracted security officers are the better choice, whether Fund 80 is an appropriate funding source, and whether the site‑supervisor job description matched the district’s safety goals. Board member Mary Wacker supported the proposal but asked the administration to rework the site‑supervisor description so it focuses on monitoring access rather than study‑hall duties. Board members Linda Boucher and Kathy Lim raised concerns about using Fund 80 and pressed for more data from the district’s newly installed security system before expanding staffing.

The board’s roll call vote was Pritha Crudiarra, Jean Lambert, Mary Wacker and Scott Wheeler in favor; Sam Hughes, Linda Boucher and Kathy Lim opposed. The motion carried. The administration said the plan could be implemented no earlier than January, contingent on city staffing timelines and final job descriptions.

Hansen also told the board that using Fund 80 would add an estimated 3 cents to the mill rate on a $400,000 home (about $12 per year under current calculations) and said district staff had confirmed the expense is allowable under the current interpretation of Fund 80.

The board directed the administration to refine the site‑supervisor job description and asked relevant committees to review policy 35‑13 (the facility‑use safety checklist) and return with operational details. The board did not set a firm implementation date beyond an administration estimate that the program could begin no earlier than January of the school year.

Public comment before the vote included several calls for transparency; Angie Pingel told the board she had only discovered the SRO item the night before the meeting and said that omission was “not transparent.” Chuck Bloom urged an audit of district finances and questioned several large expenditures.

The board’s approval makes Elmbrook’s after‑hours SRO plan an official district program and begins a committee‑level process to finalize job descriptions, policy language and an implementation timetable.