Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Resource Officer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Curry County approves amended Brookings intergovernmental agreement to continue school resource officer program
Summary
The Curry County Board of Commissioners on April 30 approved an amendment to its intergovernmental agreement with the City of Brookings to continue cost-sharing for a school resource officer, replacing a fixed dollar amount with a cap equal to 12.5% of the cost. Supporters described the officer as a key school safety and youth-prevention resource and discussed expanding the model to other districts.
Curry County commissioners voted April 30 to approve an amended intergovernmental agreement with the City of Brookings to continue sharing the cost of a school resource officer, adopting language that caps the county’s contribution at 12.5 percent of the position’s cost rather than a fixed dollar amount.
Supporters said the school resource officer program has been an important presence on campus. The county’s meeting record includes praise for the officer — identified by first name as Ray — who was described as ‘‘integral to the school’s ecosystem’’ because he engages with students, volunteers as a coach and provides an on-campus safety presence. The school board director (president), speaking in support of the amendment, said the benefits have been ‘‘incredible’’ and urged the board to consider expanding the arrangement to the county’s other two school districts.
A commissioner framed the county’s approach as nonpartisan oversight of service delivery, saying the board’s duty is to the public rather than any single department. ‘‘My oath is to the constitution and my allegiance is to the citizens of Curry County, not to any particular agency,’’ the presiding official said while urging transparency about what services are delivered for budgeted dollars.
The amendment replaces a specific dollar figure with a formulaic cap of 12.5 percent of cost; officials said that change preserves the arrangement while clarifying the county’s maximum share. Commissioners discussed prior criticism and a recall attempt that had raised objections to partnering with municipal law enforcement, and they emphasized the need for data and service descriptions from any agency that receives county funding.
The motion to approve the intergovernmental agreement was moved and seconded; the board carried the motion on a recorded voice vote (Commissioner Coker: Aye; Commissioner Hollinger: Yes; presiding official concurred). The board received no public comment cards on the item at the meeting.
The board discussed asking the county juvenile prevention staff to present on recent trends in youth access to harmful over‑the‑counter products and to coordinate messaging with school partners. No further formal action on expansion was taken at the meeting.
