Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 52/MSAD 52 voters approve revised budget after failed attempt to cut school resource officer funding
Summary
At the annual RSU 52/MSAD 52 district budget meeting, voters approved the revised budget and all warrant articles. A proposal to cut $172,710 from student and staff support — aimed at eliminating the school resource officer — was debated and failed; the article then passed as recommended.
At the RSU 52/MSAD 52 district budget meeting, voters approved the board’s revised budget and every warrant article after a contested amendment sought to reduce funding for the school resource officer (SRO).
The amendment, moved to reduce Article 5 by $172,710, was presented by Mr. Shaw, who argued the SRO is "a non-essential position" paid entirely by local taxpayers and that removing it would reduce the local tax burden without affecting instruction. "It lets the schools operate with the exact same law enforcement presence that the towns have historically enjoyed," he said, urging the reduction.
Supporters of keeping the SRO, including school administrators and multiple board members, replied that the position has been useful for intervening in safety issues involving students, families and staff and that the administrative team "100% supports having this position here." A board member noted that the board has repeatedly voted to retain the SRO and that Mr. Shaw appeared to be the sole dissenting voice on the table.
The amendment was seconded and discussed at length, including procedural clarifications that the vote before the meeting was solely on the dollar reduction (not on hiring or contract terms). The assembly then voted on the amendment by raised hands; the amendment failed and Article 5 proceeded to a voice vote and carried as originally presented.
What happened next: after the amendment failed, the full Article 5 (student and staff support) passed on the floor by voice vote. Several board members emphasized they weigh safety and fiscal concerns when approving budget items.
Why it matters: the exchange was the meeting’s main substantive policy dispute. The SRO’s funding level — read aloud as part of Article 5 — drew public scrutiny because it is a relatively large, recurring personnel expense and because town taxpayers bear the local share of that cost. The debate highlighted differing views among board members and residents about school safety staffing and local fiscal responsibility.
Next steps and context: no change to the SRO line was made at this meeting; the district budget as amended by the board was approved and will proceed to the validation referendum where required. The district has previously discussed the role and funding of the SRO at multiple board meetings, according to speakers at this session.
