Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District evaluates reunification software, cites existing Evolv screening units and drill lessons
Summary
District leaders and a security vendor told the subcommittee they are evaluating reunification software after a large-scale drill showed pen-and-paper reunification is impractical; Evolv screening units are already in use at several high schools.
District leaders and a vendor described security purchases and planning at the May 13 subcommittee meeting, focusing on screening technology already in schools and an active search for reunification software.
Chief Pat Roach told the committee his team reconciled the books and identified surplus funds that could be used for safety and security investments that were previously requested. He noted the list of items had gone through the budget process and invited vendor representative Adam Fenn to speak about security equipment and software. "Adam Fenn is here" was used to introduce the vendor representative.
Adam Fenn said the district is "heavily investigating reunification software" to handle large evacuations, explaining that during a recent large drill the pen-and-paper process was nearly impossible for the volume of volunteers and participants involved. He also described existing use of screening technology: "I felt that the Evolv units, which we're already using to great success at Central, SciTech, Renaissance, South End, STEM... just to keep these weapons out of our schools." Fenn emphasized that technology should complement in-person staff and that the district should avoid selecting the wrong reunification vendor without due diligence.
Committee members asked about drill frequency and multiagency exercises; Roach said each school does two lockdown drills per year (one announced, one unannounced) and that the district attempts an annual multiagency exercise with Springfield fire, police, state police and MEMA when schedules permit.
No procurement decisions were made at the meeting. Committee members expressed support for safety investments and requested further vetting of reunification software before a recommendation to purchase.
The discussion will inform how the recommended carryover funds (Item A) are allocated when the full committee votes on those recommendations next week.
