Received: from BCSpam300.westwindsortwp.local (10.11.13.198) by WWTExch2012.Westwindsortwp.local (10.11.13.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:49:11 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1531147750-0eddee176536210001-OBQS1U Received: from esa2.hc2742-60.iphmx.com (esa2.hc2742-60.iphmx.com [216.71.147.66]) by BCSpam300.westwindsortwp.local with ESMTP id tJ7RDXjbKDuLrqup for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 10:49:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: David.Aderhold@ww-p.org X-Barracuda-Effective-Source-IP: esa2.hc2742-60.iphmx.com[216.71.147.66] X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 216.71.147.66 Received: from ww-p.org (HELO WWP-WEbmail.westwindsor.k12.nj.us) ([204.10.63.5]) by esa2.hc2742-60.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Jul 2018 10:49:09 -0400 Received: from WWP-EXCHANGE3.westwindsor.k12.nj.us ([fe80::8fe:1d7c:3977:8125]) by WWP-WEbmail.westwindsor.k12.nj.us ([fe80::55b5:e4a7:4e77:b6f9%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0389.001; Mon, 9 Jul 2018 10:47:08 -0400 From: "Aderhold, David" To: Marlena Schmid Subject: Re: Armored police in WW-P schools- a legal perspective Thread-Topic: Armored police in WW-P schools- a legal perspective X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Armored police in WW-P schools- a legal perspective Thread-Index: AQHUFZKkB+fnLUa/LUOJCdMwjuYjWKSDBmTQgAPxVBCAAASNQw== Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 14:47:06 +0000 Message-ID: <8B22C7B6-5DE5-42CB-AFB9-2C79D802F5ED@ww-p.org> References: <2700CD51DF1A484A9886F78789FFD58F03518EE25E@WWTExch2012.Westwindsortwp.local>,<42D18407A474984C9809A6A45229A77C0351CAFC2F@WWTExch2012.Westwindsortwp.local> In-Reply-To: <42D18407A474984C9809A6A45229A77C0351CAFC2F@WWTExch2012.Westwindsortwp.local> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_ee7e65ea-8176-432d-a08b-7e63b1ace76e_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: esa2.hc2742-60.iphmx.com[216.71.147.66] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1531147750 X-Barracuda-URL: https://10.11.13.198:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at westwindsortwp.local X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 18594 X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=2.5 KILL_LEVEL=4.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.53282 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message Return-Path: David.Aderhold@ww-p.org X-MS-Exchange-Organization-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jul 2018 14:49:11.9617 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-Forest-ArrivalHubServer: WWTExch2012.Westwindsortwp.local X-MS-Exchange-Organization-OriginalClientIPAddress: 10.11.13.198 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-OriginalServerIPAddress: 10.11.13.52 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: WWTExch2012.Westwindsortwp.local X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-MessageDirectionality: Incoming X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Cross-Premises-Headers-Processed: WWTExch2012.Westwindsortwp.local X-MS-Exchange-Organization-OriginalSize: 22293 X-MS-Exchange-Forest-MessageScope: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-MessageScope: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-HygienePolicy: Standard X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Recipient-Limit-Verified: True X-MS-Exchange-Forest-RulesExecuted: WWTExch2012 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Rules-Execution-History: OPRA Disclaimer Footer%%%Spam --_ee7e65ea-8176-432d-a08b-7e63b1ace76e_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I=92m teaching and will call this afternoon This same was sent this weekend except where it says experienced letter it = said Ayesha Hamilton Sent from my iPhone On Jul 9, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Marlena Schmid > wrote: Good morning: Linda Geevers forwarded the e-mail below to us. Please call me to strategi= ze. Thanks, Marlena 609-799-2400 ext. 223 From: Linda Geevers Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 10:40 PM To: MAYOR'SOFFICE; Marlena Schmid; Council Cc: Gay Huber Subject: FW: Armored police in WW-P schools- a legal perspective I told Dr. Ilangovan that I would forward her email below to all of you. Wh= en we next discuss the Shared Services Agreement, these questions should be= answered or reviewed again for the sake of the public=92s understanding. Linda From: Kani Ilangovan [mailto:kaniilangovanmd@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 9:34 PM To: Linda Geevers Subject: Armored police in WW-P schools- a legal perspective Dear Linda, How are you and your family? I hope all is well. I know you have the best i= nterests of this community at heart. I have had a chance to review the Shar= ed Services Contract and consult an experienced lawyer about the contract a= nd wanted to share the following major concerns with you: Please read an experienced lawyer=92s perspective on the contract allowing = armed police in WW-P schools. Is this Shared Services Contract for SROs in the WW-P schools a good and re= asonable expenditure for West Windsor and Plainsboro? What is the scope of = our actual liability? Do the contract provisions themselves actually protec= t the town from liability? What happens if a police officer does something improper at the schools or = is even just accused of doing something improper at the schools? The parent sues the schools and the Township because he is our employee. The schools pay the parents. The Township pays the parents. Then the Township pays the schools for their defense and anything they paid= the parent. It is also possible and quite likely that the Joint Insurance Fund will dis= claim coverage and that the taxpayers will pay. Negligent acts will be cov= ered by insurance. It is the acts outside the scope of the officer's offici= al duties that will not be covered and which are more likely to be the acti= ons for which a parent will sue the school and the township. You, as the tax payer, will have paid twice if a liability claim is raised,= once through the schools and once through the township indemnification cla= use. While they are two entities, the pocket is the same- yours. A portio= n of this may be covered by the Joint Insurance Fund but it is also likely = that JIF could disclaim coverage because of what the officer did, i.e. if h= e assaults (or is claimed to have assaulted) a child it would be considered= an intentional act and therefore, outside the scope of the Insurance cover= age. Most insurance policies have exclusions for certain actions, usually discla= iming coverage for intentional acts. Why should the West Windsor and Plainsboro townships indemnify the actions = of the officer? We, as a Township, did not ask for these additional officer= s in the schools, so why should we be asked to indemnify their actions? Th= is liability should lie squarely with the School District since it is their= plan initiated and designed by them. Take a closer look at the contract and see the clauses permitting these off= icers to transport our children because they will not be using police cars = and will be driving private vehicle. Their vehicles will not be covered by= the Joint Insurance Fund and we may not know what the coverage limits are = since they will be privately insured. Further, if the SLEO III's job is to= remain at the schools, why does the shared services agreement allow them t= o transport children? This contract does not protect the interests of our township and could pote= ntially be the source of highly expensive lawsuits that are not covered by = insurance. Does this make sense? What is wrong with the current system of the police officers being statione= d outside the schools in their cars? Why is it necessary for them to be ins= ide the schools given the legal and financial risks of them interacting wit= h and transporting students? Take care, Kani I have attached the Shared Services contract and the searchable-text versio= n of that 75-page document that John Hinsdale created. From John: You can search for words like "discipline" etc. Attached text file was created with OCR software and may not be entirely co= mplete and accurate, but you can always go back to the original. Other good words to search for are "indemnify" or "arrest" etc. Please be advised that the Township of West Windsor is subject to the New J= ersey Open Public Records Act. As such, any email sent or received by the T= ownship may be subject to a records request. =AD=AD --_ee7e65ea-8176-432d-a08b-7e63b1ace76e_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I=92m teaching and will call this afternoon

This same was sent this weekend except where it says experienced lette= r it said Ayesha Hamilton 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 9, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Marlena Schmid <mschmid@westwindsortwp.com> wrote:

Good morning:<= /span>

 <= /p>

Linda Geevers forwarded t= he e-mail below to us.  Please call me to strategize.

 <= /p>

 <= /p>

Thanks,=

 <= /p>

Marlena=

609-799-2400 ext. 223

 <= /p>

From: Linda = Geevers
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2018 10:40 PM
To: MAYOR'SOFFICE; Marlena Schmid; Council
Cc: Gay Huber
Subject: FW: Armored police in WW-P schools- a legal perspective

 

I told Dr. Ilangovan that= I would forward her email below to all of you. When we next discuss the Sh= ared Services Agreement, these questions should be answered or reviewed again for the sake of the public=92s understanding.=

 <= /p>

Linda

 

From: Kani Ila= ngovan [mailto:kaniilangovanmd= @gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 9:34 PM
To: Linda Geevers
Subject: Armored police in WW-P schools- a legal perspective

 

Dear Linda,

How are you and your family? I hope all is well. I know you have the = best interests of this community at heart. I have had a chance to= review the Shared Services Contract and consult an experienced lawyer abou= t the contract and wanted to share the following major con= cerns with you:

 

 

Please read an experienced lawyer=92s perspective on the contract = allowing armed police in WW-P schools.

 

Is this Shared Services Contract for SROs in the WW-P schools a go= od and reasonable expenditure for West Windsor and Plainsboro? What is the = scope of our actual liability? Do the contract provisions themselves actually protect the town from liability?

 

What happens if a police officer does something improper at the sc= hools or is even just accused of doing something improper at the schools?

 

The parent sues the schools and the Township because he is our emp= loyee.

The schools pay the parents.  The Township pays the parents.<= o:p>

Then the Township pays the schools for their defense and anything = they paid the parent.

It is also possible and quite likely that the Joint Insurance Fund= will disclaim coverage and that the taxpayers will pay.  Neglige= nt acts will be covered by insurance. It is the acts outside the scope of the officer's official duties that will not be c= overed and which are more likely to be the actions for which a parent = will sue the school and the township.  

 

You, as the tax payer, will have paid twice if a liability claim i= s raised, once through the schools and once through the township indemnific= ation clause.  While they are two entities, the pocket is the same- yours.  A portion of this may be co= vered by the Joint Insurance Fund but it is also likely that JIF could disc= laim coverage because of what the officer did, i.e. if he assaults (or is c= laimed to have assaulted) a child it would be considered an intentional act and therefore, outside the scope of the Insurance cover= age. 

 

Most insurance policies have exclusions for certain actions,&= nbsp;usually disclaiming coverage for intentional acts.    <= o:p>

 

Why should the West Windsor and Plainsboro townships indemnify the= actions of the officer? We, as a Township, did not ask for these additiona= l officers in the schools, so why should we be asked to indemnify their actions?  This liability should lie sq= uarely with the School District since it is their plan initiated and design= ed by them.

 

Take a closer look at the contract and see the clauses permitting = these officers to transport our children because they will not be using pol= ice cars and will be driving private vehicle.  Their vehicles will not be covered by the Joint Insurance F= und and we may not know what the coverage limits are since they will b= e privately insured.  Further, if the SLEO III's job is to remain at t= he schools, why does the shared services agreement allow them to transport children?

 

This contract does not protect the interests of our township and c= ould potentially be the source of highly expensive lawsuits that are not co= vered by insurance. Does this make sense?

 

What is wrong with the current system of the police officers being= stationed outside the schools in their cars? Why is it necessary for them = to be inside the schools given the legal and financial risks of them interacting with and transporting students?

 

Take care, Kani

 

 

I have attached the Shared Services contract and the searchab= le-text version of that 75-page document that John Hinsdale created. &= nbsp;

 

From John: You can search for words like "discipline" et= c.
Attached text file was created with OCR software and may not be entirely co= mplete and accurate, but you can always go back to the original.
Other good words to search for are "indemnify" or "arrest&qu= ot; etc.

 

 

Please be advised that the Township of West Windsor = is subject to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act. As such, any email se= nt or received by the Township may be subject to a records request.


  =AD=AD  
<Memorandum_of_Agreement_with_West_Windsor_Township.txt>
--_ee7e65ea-8176-432d-a08b-7e63b1ace76e_--