Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board and sheriff disagree on SRO contract terms as district weighs coverage and cost
Summary
Administrators told the board the sheriff declined to sign the proposed SRO contract and returned alternate terms; trustees discussed overtime, certification requirements, county allocation for SROs and options including municipal coverage or a formal MOU.
The Bladen County Board of Education heard an update Oct. 13 that it does not yet have a signed school-resource-officer (SRO) contract with the sheriff's office and that attorneys for both sides should meet to reconcile differences.
"At this time, we do not have a contract. The sheriff has expressed a disagreement with the current contract that was sent to you," Anne Brown told the board, adding that the sheriff presented an alternative contract he would be willing to sign and suggested attorneys meet to reach agreement.
Board members and administrators focused on several funding and coverage questions: the county originally agreed to fund up to six SROs and provided $316,985 as the local allocation for that purpose; presenters said that given salary increases the current per-officer cost is roughly $87,000 on salary and benefits alone. The district reported it currently has nine SROs in place and one vacancy; some schools have separate security agreements (for example an early-college site uses its own private security).
Trustees raised concerns about using off-duty deputies versus certified school-resource officers, the need for an MOU specifying hours, duties and overtime policies, and the legal limits that attach to school-related questioning and student interactions. The board emphasized the need for consistency so students know who their assigned SRO is on a daily basis.
The board and administration discussed alternatives, including municipal police coverage for certain schools and forwarding the dispute to attorneys to craft a binding MOU. Administration recommended that the board and county commissioners meet to review the funding shortfall and determine whether local allocations should be adjusted to reflect rising personnel costs.
Next steps: administration will have Miss Harrison (finance) and the board attorney run the specific SRO numbers, finalize an MOU draft, and schedule attorney-to-attorney discussions with the sheriff's counsel. The board asked staff to bring back clear cost comparisons and the MOU language for approval.
Sources: Presentation and Q&A with Anne Brown and district staff at the Oct. 13 board meeting.
