Resident Calls Superintendent's Synopsis Purposely Misleading

The summary of the Board of Education meeting posted on the Board website which was written by Superintendant Dr. Dolan is very upsetting.  It’s one thing for her to continue to push her agenda, but to purposely mislead residents is completely outrageous.

Although what she wrote was accurate, she conveniently left out what was the better part of the meeting. That was the comments by Board members that questioned the SRO and the comments from residents who showed up speaking  vociferously opposed to the SRO .

She has absolutely no right to undermine the Board members Mitch Slater, Ann Cary and Mark Friedman by leaving out their very important questions and comments. Their questions were integral to trying to dig deeper into the issue to let residents truly understand what this position entails and its implications. For instance, Mitch Slater asked how much training this SRO gets for this position which relies heavily on counseling and mentoring. Police Chief Wayman answered that it consists of 7-10 days of training for the entire position. That is very important for residents to know, yet completely left out of the synopsis.  Ann Cary commented that she feels we are “jumping the gun,” not intending to be a play on words, yet this was never mentioned. The only comments of Board members mentioned was that of Brendan Galligan. That is just plain wrong.

Residents deserve to know the truth and nothing but the truth. There was a packed house full of residents at the last meeting who knew exactly what went on in that room. However, for those who were unable to attend for whatever reason, this Board of Ed synopsis written by Superintendent Dr. Dolan of the June 11 meeting is a complete travesty.

I applaud Board members Mitch Slater and Ann Cary for coming out publicly in their letter to the Patch “Why the Rush to Make SRO Decision Now?" They have set the record straight and I agree 100 percent with the sentiment that we need to slow down and not rush into this.   

The opposition by residents that this issue has sparked is evidence in and of itself that at the very least, residents want their views to be at the forefront of this decision.

I agree with Mitch Slater and Ann Cary that a trained counselor who specializes in working with teenagers, not law enforcement, would be better served than an SRO for this purpose. Students will be much more likely to confide in a specialized counselor than going to a police officer and risk being arrested. 

Hiring an SAC would resolve many of the concerns of residents. This counselor will be there specifically for these issues under the total jurisdiction of the school system (not the Westfield police), trained for more than 7-10 days,  the students will feel safer confiding in an School Assistance Counselor, and they won’t be armed. I completely understand that the SRO is an officer on duty so he is required to carry his weapon. However, if the main objective as stated by Dr. Dolan is for mentoring and teaching, not for security, then a weapon seems superfluous. I believe that would ease the minds of many residents.

Again, I am disturbed, angry and feel justifiably compromised that Dr. Dolan chose to cherry pick the information going out to residents and not include the other relevant and important points that were discussed.

The next Board meeting is Monday, June 24. I would urge all those opposed to the armed SRO to attend this very important meeting so as to have their voices heard.

Karen Egert