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 about the contract and wanted to share the following major concerns with you:
Please read an experienced lawyer’s 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 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 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 disclaim coverage and that the taxpayers will pay. Negligent acts will be covered by insurance. It is the
acts outside the scope of the officer's official duties that will not be covered 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 is raised, once through the schools and once through the township indemnification clause. While they are two entities,
the pocket is the same- yours. A portion 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 he assaults (or is claimed to have assaulted) a child it would be considered
an intentional act and therefore, outside the scope of the Insurance coverage.
Most insurance policies have exclusions for certain actions, usually disclaiming 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 officers in the schools, so why should
we be asked to indemnify their actions? This 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 officers 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 to transport children?
This contract does not protect the interests of our township and could potentially 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 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 searchable-text version 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 complete 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 Jersey Open Public Records Act. As such, any email sent or received by the Township may be subject to a records request.