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 17:29:53 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1531171792-0eddee17653a3e0001-OBQS1U Received: from esa2.hc2742-60.iphmx.com (esa2.hc2742-60.iphmx.com [216.71.147.66]) by BCSpam300.westwindsortwp.local with ESMTP id Eif8UVLBwOe2QLK5 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2018 17:29:52 -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 17:29:51 -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 17:29:51 -0400 From: "Aderhold, David" To: Marlena Schmid Subject: FW: some policy questions Thread-Topic: some policy questions X-ASG-Orig-Subj: FW: some policy questions Thread-Index: AQHUFiwZypY2bxe0LEqh8fB6DEjnMKSEMHUhgAM7BOA= Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 21:29:49 +0000 Message-ID: <98E441CFB9DE4F42AA864F9ED21028B5016F8425FE@wwp-exchange3.westwindsor.k12.nj.us> References: <9D4FC89B84722343BD81158A59E0DADF014BD1E5B9@wwp-exchange3.westwindsor.k12.nj.us> In-Reply-To: <9D4FC89B84722343BD81158A59E0DADF014BD1E5B9@wwp-exchange3.westwindsor.k12.nj.us> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.101.9.38] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_44e0cc3b-65d1-4813-8c9b-60c582344fd8_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Barracuda-Connect: esa2.hc2742-60.iphmx.com[216.71.147.66] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1531171792 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: 19300 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 3.2.3.53301 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 21:29:53.7544 (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: 22932 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-Organization-Disclaimer-Hash: 0935327025034fd0101c9873cd05fde337eb3fa17336b7888bd981da5743cd3f X-MS-Exchange-Forest-RulesExecuted: WWTExch2012 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Rules-Execution-History: OPRA Disclaimer Footer%%%Spam --_44e0cc3b-65d1-4813-8c9b-60c582344fd8_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ________________________________ From: Kani Ilangovan [kaniilangovanmd@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 3:52 PM To: Fleres, Anthony Subject: some policy questions Dear Mr. Fleres, How are you? I hope all is well with you and your family. I am still confused as to why it is necessary to change the current system = of the police officers being stationed outside the schools in their cars? W= hy is it necessary for the officers to be inside the schools given the lega= l and financial risks of them interacting with and transporting students? T= he liability to our township is too great a risk, given that we can still p= rotect the kids with the officers stationed outside of the school. As a child psychiatrist, I am very concerned about the psychological impact= of our kids being exposed to a gun on daily basis. Our kids are growing up= in a different time and seeing reports of brutality and bias in the news e= veryday. Some kids may feel frightened by the presence of an armed police o= fficer in the school. Especially when the news has a multiplicity of report= s like this: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/01/25/black-students-more-likely-to= -be-arrested.html https://mic.com/articles/188694/school-resource-officers-= have-abused-black-kids-for-years-some-parkland-teens-want-more-of-them#.vOo= OFw2t5 https://mic.com/articles/188135/parkland-school-safety-and-the-devas= tating-effects-law-enforcement-can-have-on-black-and-brown-kids#.vOoOFw2t5 = https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-to-prison-pipeline_us_5a8ee0afe= 4b077f5bfec2cf3 I am worried about how this fear may negatively impact thei= r performance, their mental wellbeing and mental health. It is an unfortuna= te fact that students are exposed to the news coverage above, even though t= he vast majority of officers, particularly in our town, are well-trained an= d protect their communities and show respect to all people, regardless of r= ace, sex, and gender. The psychological health and wellbeing of our kids is as important as their= physical health. We are capable of protecting them with officers stationed= outside of the school. Why expose them to unnecessary stress if we can pre= vent doing so? Thank you for your care and concern for our community. Take care, Kani p.s. Please read West Windsor Councilwoman Ayesha Hamilton's perspective on the = contract allowing armed police in WW-P schools. Ayesha is an experienced la= wyer and has some great insights to share. 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 disclaim coverage and that the taxpayers will pay. Negligent acts= will be covered by insurance. It is the acts outside the scope of the offi= cer'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. Yo= u, as the tax payer, will have paid twice if a liability claim is raised, o= nce through the schools and once through the township indemnification claus= e. 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 as= saults (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 discl= aiming coverage for intentional acts. Why should the West Windsor and Plain= sboro townships indemnify the actions of the officer? We, as a Township, di= d 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 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 s= ince they will be privately insured. Further, if the SLEO III's job is to r= emain at the schools, why does the shared services agreement allow them to = transport children? This contract does not protect the interests of our tow= nship 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 stu= dents? 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. --_44e0cc3b-65d1-4813-8c9b-60c582344fd8_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

From: Kani Ilangovan [kaniilan= govanmd@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 3:52 PM
To: Fleres, Anthony
Subject: some policy questions

Dear Mr. Fleres,

 

How are you? I hope all is w= ell with you and your family.

 <= /span>

I am still confused as to wh= y it is necessary to change the current system of the police officers = being stationed outside the schools in their cars? Why is it necessary for the officers to be inside the schools given the legal and fi= nancial risks of them interacting with and transporting students? The liabi= lity to our township is too great a risk, given that we can still protect t= he kids with the officers stationed outside of the school.=

 <= /span>

As a child psychiatrist, I a= m very concerned about the psychological impact of our kids being exposed t= o a gun on daily basis. Our kids are growing up in a different time and seeing reports of brutality and bias in the news everyday. Some k= ids may feel frightened by the presence of an armed police officer in the s= chool. Especially when the news has a multiplicity of reports like this:

https://www.edweek= .org/ew/articles/2017/01/25/black-students-more-likely-to-be-arrested.html<= /span> https://mic.com/articles/188694/school= -resource-officers-have-abused-black-kids-for-years-some-parkland-teens-wan= t-more-of-them#.vOoOFw2t5 https://mic.com/articles/188135/parkla= nd-school-safety-and-the-devastating-effects-law-enforcement-can-have-on-bl= ack-and-brown-kids#.vOoOFw2t5 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/s= chool-to-prison-pipeline_us_5a8ee0afe4b077f5bfec2cf3 I am worrie= d about how this fear may negatively impact their performance, their mental= wellbeing and mental health. It is an unfortunate fact that students are exposed to the news coverage above, = even though the vast majority of officers, particularly in our town, are we= ll-trained and protect their communities and show respect to all people, re= gardless of race, sex, and gender.

The psychological health and= wellbeing of our kids is as important as their physical health. We are cap= able of protecting them with officers stationed outside of the school. Why expose them to unnecessary stress if we can prevent doi= ng so?



Thank you for your care and = concern for our community.

Take care, Kani

 

 <= /span>

p.s. 

Please read West Windsor Councilwoman Ayesha Hamilton's pers= pective on the contract allowing armed police in WW-P schools. Ayesha is an experienced lawyer and has some great insigh= ts to share.

Is this Shared Servi= ces 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 themselve= s actually protect the town from liability? What happens if a police office= r does something improper at the schools or is even just accused of doing s= omething improper at the schools? The parent sues the schools and the Township because he is our employee. T= he schools pay the parents. The Township pays the parents. Then the Townshi= p 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 taxpayer= s will pay. Negligent acts will be covered by insurance. It is the acts out= side the scope of the officer's official duties that will not be covered an= d which are more likely to be the actions for which a parent will sue the school and the township. You, as t= he tax payer, will have paid twice if a liability claim is raised, once thr= ough the schools and once through the township indemnification clause. Whil= e they are two entities, the pocket is the same- yours. A portion of this may be covered by the Joint Insuranc= e Fund but it is also likely that JIF could disclaim coverage because of wh= at 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 disc= laiming coverage for intentional acts. Why should the West Windsor and Plai= nsboro townships indemnify the actions of the officer? We, as a Township, did not ask for these additional office= rs 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 th= ese officers to transport our children because they will not be using polic= e cars and will be driving private vehicle. Their vehicles will not be cove= red by the Joint Insurance Fund and we may not know what the coverage limits are since they will be privat= ely insured. Further, if the SLEO III's job is to remain at the schools, wh= y 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 la= wsuits that are not covered by insurance. Does this make sense? What is wro= ng with the current system of the police officers being stationed outside t= he schools in their cars? Why is it necessary for them to be inside the schools given the legal and financi= al risks of them interacting with and transporting students?

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. --_44e0cc3b-65d1-4813-8c9b-60c582344fd8_--