Board hears update on armed security hurdles; public commenter urges investment in counselors and services instead of guns
Summary
District staff said civil‑service rules currently require a competitive 'school security guard' title with a seven‑year law‑enforcement prerequisite before firearms can be authorized; a public commenter, Shoshana Herskowitz, told the board that evidence shows armed guards do not make students safer and urged investments in social services and staff.
District staff updated the Three Village Central School District Board of Education on Jan. 7 about the status of efforts to hire and arm school security staff and described civil‑service constraints that complicate immediate changes.
Doctor Dubereski reported that civil service has reclassified the role as a competitive title called “school security guard,” which the district was told now requires a minimum of seven years’ law‑enforcement experience for candidates who would be permitted to carry firearms. He said civil service runs an exam and produces a ranked list and that districts can hire from that list; because the list is limited, other districts have already hired many available candidates. Dubereski said the district is exploring whether civil service will run the exam again sooner than the reported two‑to‑three year expectation and described the district as in a holding pattern until more candidates are reachable by score.
At the start of the public‑comment period, Shoshana Herskowitz addressed the board on armed security. Herskowitz identified herself as working for an organization that focuses on evidence and data‑based practices and urged the board not to arm guards. “Guns in schools do not keep kids safer. Period,” she said, and recommended that the district instead invest in wraparound services, counselors, social workers, and Parent University programs to promote safe firearm storage and community education.
Why it matters: The civil‑service rules described by district staff limit the district’s near‑term options for authorizing armed school security officers and make any change contingent on state civil‑service processes. The public comment highlights a community policy debate between deterrence via armed staff and investments in prevention and student support services.
What’s next: District staff said they would pursue options with civil service, including petitioning for a new exam, continue to recruit former law‑enforcement and military candidates where available, and bring further updates to the board as the civil‑service picture evolves.
