The Redford Union Schools District No. 1 Board of Education debated whether to accept new state school-safety funding that conditions receipt on consenting to a governor-appointed investigation and waiving legal privilege, then voted to reject the recommended resolution and asked staff to return with a revised document at the district's next regular meeting.

Attorney Adam Balak of Miller Johnson told the board that under the State School Aid Act's Section 31aa districts must opt in to receive the funds by Dec. 4 but may rescind that election through Dec. 30. Balak advised boards to "accept the funding, and then we still get to deal with the thorny question of what to do" if litigation does not resolve in their favor. He summarized the payoff as roughly "a $140 per student," and said the funds are intended for safety, security and student mental-health supports.

Balak cautioned the board that the statute's definition of a "mass casualty" is broader than school shootings and could include incidents such as serious bus accidents or other events that produce multiple injuries or that overwhelm local emergency resources. He also emphasized the waiver of privilege requirement: "you'll be required to waive any privilege that may otherwise protect information from disclosure" for a governor-appointed investigation, and he told the board that, in his view, the board holds privilege and should consider whether to give the superintendent authority to rescind the district's opt-in.

Board members and attendees raised concerns about the practical consequences of accepting the money. Members asked whether independent reports would make plaintiffs' litigation easier, whether governmental immunity could be affected, and whether individual employees might need separate counsel after a mass-casualty investigation. Balak said the statute does not change governmental immunity but warned an independent report could increase settlement exposure and make investigating facts simpler for plaintiffs.

The board read the recommended resolution (which would have accepted funding under Section 31aa, agreed to comply with a governor-appointed comprehensive investigation and waived privilege "with respect to the governor appointed investigation"); after discussion the resolution was moved (moved by Miss Kosowski; seconded by Miss Miller) and then defeated in a roll-call vote, with the chair and four members voting No. The motion failed, and board members directed administration and legal counsel to prepare an updated resolution for the board's regular meeting, which would include clearer direction about the superintendent's authority to rescind if necessary.

During public comment speakers asked whether current mental-health staff would retain jobs without the Section 31aa funding and how much the district would actually receive. District officials said existing clinicians are funded through a mix of general-fund dollars and other grants; past grant figures and carryover vary year-to-year. Balak and members noted that short-term grant funding can create sustainability problems for staff hired only for a year.

The board also handled routine business: members amended the agenda to remove a planned closed session earlier in the meeting and later adjourned at 6:45 p.m. The board scheduled its next regular meeting for Dec. 1 and a workshop for Dec. 16.

What's next: the board asked for a revised resolution that will explicitly address whether the superintendent may rescind the district's opt-in if litigation outcomes or administrative guidance change, and the updated resolution will be presented at the Dec. 1 meeting.