Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Polk County court directs counsel to draft SRO agreement with Goodrich ISD, seeks written cost protections
Summary
After extended discussion the court instructed counsel to draft an agreement to place a school resource officer at Goodrich ISD, preferring an SRO designation and requiring the district to provide written guarantees on the $50,000 contribution and responsibility for cost escalations and personnel controls.
The Polk County court directed county counsel to draft an agreement with Goodrich Independent School District to provide campus enforcement services, with the court expressing a preference to structure the position as a school resource officer (SRO) and requiring written guarantees from the district about compensation and responsibilities.
"So we're gonna go with the SRO," the chair said after discussion of roles and liability. The court asked Eric McGee, the county's counsel, to prepare an internal agreement under the government code citation noted in the meeting materials so the constable's office would operate under county authority.
Officer Cotton (introduced to the court during discussion) urged an SRO designation and explained the difference: "If it's a routine basis where he's gonna be going inside the school directly interacting with the kids, under state law, he has to have that school based resource officer training," he said, adding that SRO training provides specific school-based responsibilities and additional training requirements.
Members stressed Goodrich ISD's stated offer to pay $50,000 toward the position (calculated by the court as roughly 1,520 hours at $24.25 per hour plus taxes and benefits) but repeatedly insisted that the agreement must clearly state that the district will cover any cost escalation and that the county retain final personnel authority for county employees. "We need these things in writing from the school," the chair said. The court also insisted the agreement not allow the district to control personnel decisions for a county employee, calling that a potential employment and liability issue.
The court's direction was procedural: it did not vote to execute a final contract but instructed counsel to return with a drafted agreement for a future vote. County staff noted that the SRO, as a county employee, would accrue vacation and sick time and that the agreement must clarify compensation during paid leave and whether the district would be expected to provide a substitute.
The court concluded by directing counsel to draft the agreement reflecting these requirements and to return the proposed document for formal action at a later meeting.
