'Why the Rush' to Make SRO Decision Now? BOE Members Ask

To the Editor:

Every major decision that the Westfield Board of Education makes is fully vetted by a Board committee. We receive information from the administration, ask questions, review new information, and then we come to a consensus and make a recommendation to the full Board. The full Board then discusses the issue and votes in public. Yet, the decision of whether or not to hire an armed police officer, called a School Resource Officer (SRO), has not been discussed by any Board committee.  Board Members were first given details about the SRO after our meeting on May 21st and were then asked to make a decision at the following meeting on June 11th. It is true that the position was touched on briefly during the budget hearings, but was never discussed in any detail. The district has not had an SRO for five years. Our question is very simple. Why the rush to make this decision now?

During our combined 12 years on the Board of Education neither of us can recall a single document, speaker, parent, or school official asking the Board to reinstate the SRO. We simply want to treat this important issue with the time and respect it deserves. That seems to be the fair approach and, most importantly, will provide the full transparency needed to help guide our decision-making process.

While doing a bit of our own research, one of the most disturbing things that we have read is that student arrests go up when an SRO is on site. At the high school, we’re dealing with teenagers. Some of them, just like adults, will make mistakes.   They may get in a fight, write graffiti on a bathroom wall, disrupt a classroom, or make a bad choice about drugs or alcohol. We think these incidents are better dealt with by administrators, teachers and counselors than a police officer who has the ability to arrest the students. If the situation escalates, the police can always be called in, as they are now. The negative effects of arrests cannot be understated.  Students may not understand that their private conversations with the SRO, who is a police officer, may result in the information they share being used against them in the future.  

The other issue is the effect a uniformed officer has on the school climate. In our opinion, having the officer on site, in full uniform, creates a negative feeling.  Instead of a police officer, we would advocate reinstating the Student Assistance Counselor (SAC). A SAC is a counselor who spends all of their time helping students with problems. If our children need mentoring, counseling, or peer mediation, let’s hire someone who has been trained to work with teens.  According to Police Chief Wayman, the average SRO receives seven to 10 days of training in counseling and education. Let there be no mistake about it -- SROs are first and foremost police officers. That is their training and their experience.

Before this Board votes whether or not to hire an SRO many questions need to be answered. We have submitted questions to the administration which will hopefully be answered on June 24th. We feel that before a vote takes place the community should be given ample time to provide input and decide if having an SRO is what the community wants. We would like to see the creation of a Citizens Advisory Committee to debate this issue and make a recommendation to the Board of Education. It may take a year to recruit committee members, meet, and educate such a committee, but it would be time well-spent. Whatever happens then would be a community decision.

Lastly, we in no way want our decision to oppose the SRO now to be taken as a negative view of the full Board and of our Superintendent. We both know how hard Dr. Dolan works and how many volunteer hours Board Members put in during a school year. We just don’t agree on this particular issue and feel the need to express our opinions publicly. This Board as a whole believes in full transparency and recognizes the importance of all stakeholders.

Sincerely,

Ann Ormsby Cary

Mitch Slater