Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glen Rock meeting after swatting incident spurs heated debate over arming school guards
Summary
Parents, prosecutors and educators told the Glen Rock Board of Education they want immediate steps to protect students after a March 13 swatting incident; supporters urged arming retired officers and security staff while others called for prevention-focused investments and an independent after‑action review.
The Glen Rock Board of Education heard hours of public comment Tuesday about school safety after a March 13 swatting incident that briefly locked down district buildings.
Parents and public-safety professionals urged the board to authorize armed personnel or give existing retired-officer security staff legal authority to carry on campus, saying immediate on-site response can save lives. "What we are asking for is as apolitical as it gets: that our children are protected by their school caregivers while they are outside the safety of their home and family," said Nick DeGregorio, a parent who addressed the board and identified himself as a Marine Corps veteran. Another parent, Paloma Surmallor, told trustees the petition supporting armed guards had "over 600 signatures" and said students felt reassured when officers arrived during the recent incident.
Other residents and educators pushed back, urging the board to prioritize evidence-based prevention, safe storage and mental‑health services. "There is a lack of evidence on reducing fatality rates from school shootings with armed SROs," said Randi Blumberg, who encouraged trustees to consider programs that identify risk and intervene earlier. Several speakers cited research and national guidance urging caution about the school climate effects of an armed school presence.
Parents who witnessed the March 13 response described procedural gaps they said need explanation. "An entire grade of students was brought into a building that was still being investigated for a bomb," said Alyssa Mandara, who said she observed students walking back toward the building while law‑enforcement clearance continued. Mandara urged the board to commission an independent, third‑party after‑action review and to make the review process publicly accessible.
Board members and administrators repeatedly thanked first responders and staff for their on‑site work and said a formal after‑action review is underway. The chair reported the district is conducting both internal and law‑enforcement reviews and said some findings cannot be publicly released for operational security. "We are still going through our post-incident review with local law enforcement and internally, and we're identifying areas that do need some attention," an administration official told the board.
Trustees said they were listening but made no immediate policy changes. Several members emphasized the need to study options — including costs, legal authority, training, how weapons would be carried (concealed or not) and whether the borough or town might share expense through a joint-services agreement. The board said it will continue to take community feedback as the after‑action review proceeds and explore options for how armed resources, if approved, would be trained, supervised and deployed.
Next steps: The board said the after‑action review will continue; the administration and police will complete meetings before the board can share additional details. No decision on arming guards was taken at Tuesday’s meeting.
