School committee reviews SRO memorandum of understanding, postpones approval pending edits

The North Attleborough School Committee reviewed a draft memorandum of understanding governing School Resource Officers (SROs) but declined to approve it, citing numerous clarifications and edits needed on interviews, parental notice, student records and the document's formatting.

A committee member opened the discussion by noting that every district with an SRO must have an MOU and that the district's current MOU had lapsed: "We do have to get this thing resolved because we're DESE requires it and we're we haven't been in compliant compliance for a couple of years," the member said. The member described the draft as the state 2022 model with a few recommended local changes and said the state is accepting feedback on a revised model through July 31.

Why it matters: The MOU defines operational boundaries between school staff and police officers in schools—who investigates what on campus, what information may be shared, how student accommodations and special-education records are handled, and whether parents are notified before interviews. Those rules affect students, families and staff across the district.

Key concerns raised - On-site interviews and parental notice: One member asked that the MOU clearly state that criminal investigations of school-age students "occur outside of the school" where practicable and that parents be notified in advance when an SRO interviews a student; the presenter said these practices generally happen but the committee wanted them written into the agreement.

- Routine discipline versus criminal investigation: Members pressed for clearer criteria to distinguish routine disciplinary issues (for example, vaping) from matters that should be handled by an SRO. A member suggested bringing principals back for a more detailed review of edge cases and decision authority.

- Annual review and FOIA: The chair asked whether an SRO performance review supplied to the district would be subject to public records requests and whether it should be considered a personnel record: "whether that's considered a personnel record or if it's subject to freedom of information request because if it's coming to us, it's not protected," the chair said, prompting discussion about where such reviews should be held and who maintains them.

- IEP access and data handling: Members asked for explicit language requiring a written release when an SRO is granted access to portions of an Individualized Education Program or 504 plan and for assurances that such documents would not be stored or redistributed on police systems.

- Regulatory citations and formatting: The draft cites 32 CFR section 989.31; members suggested moving that citation so it reads as part of the information-sharing compliance expectations and requested clearer section numbering and bolding for the annual-review section.

Outcome and next steps: Committee members agreed there were too many edits to approve the MOU that night. They asked that suggestions from a prior September email be consolidated into proposed draft language, that the working draft be circulated in an editable Word format to the person preparing the next version, and that the committee consider a subcommittee meeting or a convening of principals and police to finalize language. The presenter emphasized the state is soliciting feedback on the model through July 31.

The committee did not take a formal vote to adopt the MOU; that action was postponed pending the requested edits and further review.