Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board asks staff to explore alternatives after SRO contract jump; questions raised about armed contractors
Summary
After being told the SRO contract rose about 42.97%—driven in part by pension payment changes—the board asked staff to investigate alternative security models, including private security firms, and sought clarity on whether contracted staff could be armed or detain students under campus policy.
Board members asked staff to investigate alternatives to the current School Resource Officer (SRO) contract after staff reported a significant contract increase.
Speaker 3 told the board "there is a 42.97% of the increase in the contract," attributing part of the rise to a change in pension payments and a revised billing split between the school board and the sheriff's office. In response, a board member moved that staff look into other vendors, including private security companies, to determine whether the district could reduce costs by contracting for security services rather than continuing the current SRO arrangement.
Members sought clarifying information about the authority and scope of any contracted security personnel. One board member asked whether a contractor would have the authority "to take students away in handcuffs," and whether they could carry weapons on campus. Staff replied that such decisions would need to be implemented through district policy and would require conversations with any prospective company; staff suggested policy changes could be drafted if the board wished to pursue armed contractors.
The board directed staff to return with options and pricing, and to discuss policy implications on authority and weapons before making changes to the current contract.
What happens next: staff will survey potential vendors and report back with alternatives and recommended policy language governing contractor authority and weapons on campus.
