Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glen Rock board begins review of arming retired-officer security and state cellphone mandate
Summary
Following a March swatting incident and public concerns, the board discussed options to bolster security — including arming retired‑officer security staff, hiring SROs or Class Two officers — and reviewed state guidance on banning non‑academic use of internet‑enabled devices, for which implementation options (including $30 pouches) remain under review pending state clarification.
The Glen Rock Board of Education opened a multi‑meeting discussion about school security and the new state guidance on student use of internet‑enabled devices.
After a March swatting incident, administration met with building principals, the district security director and the police department and surveyed staff. Mr. Vest summarized staff feedback and said staff and administration generally support arming security personnel but raised concerns about training, school climate and implementation: "In general, the staff and administration support arming our security guards... but they also expressed concerns about the roll out and ongoing communication," he said.
Administration described three security models: a full‑time school resource officer (SRO) with cost‑sharing arrangements; SLEOs/Class Two officers (typically retired police working part‑time); or arming the district's existing security guards (presently retired officers) and expanding training and procedures. Mr. Canelis recommended using the existing retired‑officer security corps if the board chooses to arm guards, noting the district has intentionally hired retired officers to enable such a transition.
On student devices, the board cited a Strauss Esmay advisory noting a discrepancy between statute language and Department of Education guidance; Strauss Esmay recommended waiting for state clarification. The district discussed a practical pouch solution (Faraday‑style lockable pouches) priced near $30 each; administrators estimated about $42,000 to equip middle and high school students and noted parent technology fees or phased approaches could be considered.
Board members asked administration for detailed cost estimates, training plans, community outreach and a proposed timeline for any change. Administration suggested that if the board decides to proceed, a September implementation would allow time for training and procedures; members requested a June meeting with cost detail and a board resolution timeline.
No policy or contract change was adopted at this meeting; the board will return with cost, training and regulatory details in a follow‑up discussion before any final vote.
