School Resource Officer to Return to WHS, Board Rules

The Westfield Board of Education voted 7-2 to reinstate the school resource officer position for the 2013-14 school year. Board members Mitch Slater and Ann Cary voted against the decision to place an armed law enforcement officer at Westfield High School. 

The position, with a salary of $100,000 to be split equally by the school district and the Town of Westfield, is one that had been in the district for a decade but was eliminated more than five years ago due to budget cuts. 

Board members spoke of the value of what they describe as a "multi-faceted" position, one that includes security, while fostering positive relationships between students, staff and law enforcement.

During budget talks in March and April, the Board looked at bringing back the position yet many residents, as well as Slater and Cary, said at the Board's last meeting, held June 11, that they needed more information before they could support this measure. 

The vote, which had been scheduled to take place that night, was tabled after Cary suggested that the Board might be "jumping the gun." 
 
At Monday's meeting, Slater asked that the Board once again table the decision but gathered only the support of Cary. Slater asked WHS Principal Peter Renwick, who spoke before the Board at both meetings in support of bringing back the position, if crime within the high school had risen within the five years the school had been without an SRO. Slater also asked if students felt less safe than they did five years ago. Renwick said he didn't have any data on that.  

Like the previous one, Monday's meeting saw a large turnout of residents who expressed concerns over the Board's objectives in reinstating the position. Parents asked why, if security is an issue, was the SRO going to be stationed only at WHS and why additional officers would not be placed at other schools. Others asked if a guidance counselor wasn't a better option to meet the district's needs. 

Parent Mitch Rubin said he was "very opposed" to having an SRO in the school and added that his daughter and her friends didn't communicate with the previous SRO when he was in the district. He added that instead the students sought out guidance counselors who "had the proper training" and could "give proper guidance."

Rubin went on to state that if the Board is truly concerned about safety then the district should consider supplying the lacrosse team with an extra bus as some players don't have seats. 

"It's an accident waiting to happen," he said. "That's something that can happen every single time they're out on a bus." 

Rubin also suggested increasing wireless access as many students were unable to use the Internet at a time when they needed to write reports. 

"I think if we're going to spend the money, focus it on areas that need real attention right now," he said. 

Westfield resident Tony Cook stated that he and his wife are “vehemently opposed” to a gun-carrying law enforcement officer stationed at the high school. Cook said while he could think of “a lot” better uses for the $100,000, he’d prefer that the money wasn’t spent at all. He added that if the district is trying to avoid another Columbine “we’re kidding ourselves”

WHS teacher Judy McLoughlin said while $100,000 is a great deal of money, one cannot quantify the incidents that can be prevented by having an SRO on duty. While she acknowledged that not every student would seek out the SRO, those who did benefitted greatly.

Board member Brendan Galligan, a student at WHS when the district had an SRO in place, spoke of the difference that officer made in the life of a friend who could have otherwise easily fallen through the cracks. Galligan added that while it was a difficult decision to make, in recent days the Board had received numerous emails in favor of the reinstatement.

Residents also expressed concern that at the last meeting, Westfield Police Chief David Wayman said he had an officer in mind for the position, and when asked, said the officer would receive 7 to 10 days of training. 

Board president Rich Mattessich said that this became a "bigger issue" because people are opposed to firearms. 

Cary suggested, based on the number of people in attendance, creating a citizens advisory committee that would include community experts and give residents a chance to fully vet the position.

"I don't feel even the Board has a full understanding of exactly how this person is going to operate," she said. 

Rather than address her suggestion, Mattessich said it was because Cary emailed residents and asked them to come that there was a larger crowd than the meetings typically attract. Mattessich also said Board members invited the public via Facebook. Cary denied emailing anyone and asked Mattessich to produce a copy of that email. On Slater's Facebook page on June 20, he wrote, "Meeting moved to the HS Monday night No matters how you feel- your voice is always welcome."

BOE candidate Jonathan Blitt stated that he believes the underlying issue isn't that the officer will carry a gun, but rather he feels it is about the "control of information." Blitt, as he stated in a letter to the editor, once again said Westfield schools superintendent Margaret Dolan's Synopsis of the June 11th meeting was "one-sided and biased." 

Both Slater and Cary declined to approve the minutes from that meeting noting that not all Board members' comments were reflected.

The Board will meet next in late August.