Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Crossing Guards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richland One approves private crossing‑guard vendor after board questions about coverage and liability
Summary
The board voted to award a contract to Cross Safe for crossing‑guard services (vote recorded 7‑0) after a debate over coverage at high‑traffic crossings, whether school‑security staff could be redeployed, and which parties assume liability.
The Richland County School District One board approved a contract with Cross Safe (Charlotte, N.C.) to provide crossing‑guard services after commissioners pressed administration on coverage, staffing and liability.
Miss Al, the administration presenter, explained the district solicited a vendor to provide crossing guards at key intersections and said the vendor would provide personnel while the district continues to use school security associates (SSAs) and Columbia Police where available during vendor ramp‑up. Mr. Grant (district operations) said that some SSAs could serve as crossing guards when schedules allow, but SSAs engaged in weapons screening during morning intake would generally not be available at the same time.
Commissioner Cheryl Harris supported the vendor arrangement and said the company would "assume liability for their employees," adding that the district is not authorized to stop traffic. Harris said contracting a vendor helps ensure the district is not held responsible for traffic control outside school property and praised the move as a step to protect students who walk to school.
Other commissioners raised operational questions: Commissioner Robert lman (and others) asked whether the contract will quickly cover high‑risk crossings that currently lack lights and requested clarity on the vendor’s start date. Mr. Grant said vendors indicated they could start after board approval and the district had been using SSAs and city police in the interim.
The motion to award the contract was moved and seconded on the record and approved by the board; the recording reflects a 7‑0 vote. The board and administration agreed to continue coordination with law enforcement and to provide additional implementation details to the board as the vendor mobilizes.
Because the crossing‑guard arrangement transfers on‑street traffic duties to a vendor, commissioners emphasized continuing vigilance for intake security and the potential for temporary service gaps while staff are reallocated. The board took no further legislative action on this item beyond approving the contract.
