FYI

 

From: Aderhold, David
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:16 PM
To: 'Ayesha Hamilton'
Subject: RE: My concerns about the SLEO III Officers

 

Mrs. Hamilton,

 

As a parent and a tax payer I respect your concerns for fiscal prudence.

 

As a member of Council that is not the decision before you.  The Board of Education has voted to support a Shared Service Agreement to place Class III Police Officers in our schools.  The elected officials that govern the Board of Education have voted to enact that agreement.  The elected members of the Board of Education have determined that ½ of 1% of the school budget is an appropriate and justifiable expenditure to enact police officers in our schools in order to enhance the safety and security for our students, staff, and community.

 

As a member of Council your vote is not to decide on the appropriateness of the spending or to usurp the determination of the members of the Board of Education.   You are not being asked to make a decision on spending.  You are being asked to allow WW Police Officers to provide a layer of safety and security for our school district.

 

With respect to your statement that “For 4 years now, I have seen you try and have the discussion with parents about addressing these issues in partnership with the schools to no avail so we as parents are partly to blame for the situation you are facing.”  I have seen major shifts in the dialogue around mental health, social and emotional learning, balance, whole child, mindfulness, etc.  Conversations and dialogues are occurring and we are making changes.  Progress takes time and systems changes can move slower than we may like, but we are making fundamental shifts.  Dialogue will not stop because SLEO III officers are hired.  They are not a “Band-Aid.”  They will be a component of a comprehensive approach to safety and security. 

 

Should the WW Council vote against the recommendation, I am prepared to bring forward other options for the Board of Education’s consideration.  Unfortunately, the WW Police Department would be excluded from those considerations, not because that is our desire, but because the Council determined that they did not want to support the judgment of the BOE members.  No matter what the vote, we will have Police Officers in Plainsboro schools as the Plainsboro Committee has supported the agreement with a 5-0 vote. 

 

The question I haven’t figured out how to answer yet is the following….what do I say to the West Windsor parent that asks why their children are not protected by police officers and students in Plainsboro are?  That of course is more complicated when you think of sending paths…what do I say to the Hawk parent that also has a student at Millstone River or CMS and wants to know why there is a difference in safety measures or why the safety of the children in Plainsboro schools are valued more than those West Windsor?  Who do I send the Plainsboro resident that’s children attend school in West Windsor? Who should I send them to voice their concerns?  When they come to the Board of Education to voice frustration, what do we say?  I guess we say that the members of the West Windsor Council thought it wasn’t the right expenditure and that the recommendation to enhance the safety for their children wasn’t fiscally prudent.

 

You have stated that “this is not a political issue.” Therefore, I ask you to honor the judgment of the Board of Education and support the Shared Service Agreement.

 

Sincerely,

Dave

 

David Aderhold, Ed.D.

Superintendent of Schools

West Windsor – Plainsboro Regional School District

 

From: Ayesha Hamilton [mailto:ahamilton2537@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 5:48 PM
To: Aderhold, David; Ayesha Hamilton
Subject: My concerns about the SLEO III Officers

 

Dr. Aderhold,

 

My concerns are not about our police in the schools or guns in the schools.  This is not a political issue nor do I think all police officers are intentionally biased against anyone, let alone our children.

 

Rather, my concerns are about whether this is the right expenditure of tax payor funds when I am not sure that this is the least restrictive way to address the actual and imminent issue, i.e. that of drugs and other bad behavior in the schools.  I hear stories from my kids about things happening in the Grover lunchroom, bathrooms, hallways etc. and can clearly see the need for some enhanced attention in the school buildings.  Teachers and administrators should not be providing that enhanced supervision, especially in schools as large as ours.  Some of the behavioral and inappropriate behavior that my kids describe to me is very concerning and I am empathetic to your need to an authority figure in the building to address these issues.

 

I believe that some of this divisive debate can be calmed by not having the officers armed.  

 

I don't know what the solution to the larger problem is but am concerned that the financial outlay is a little scattershot.  As a tax payer, I will be paying for the SLEO III, the "Eyes on the Door" as well as the enhancements contained in the $123 Million referendum coming down the pike at us this November.  If the concern is truly the threat of gun violence, then the solution is the phasing of these mechanisms, trying the physical security enhancements together with Eyes on the Door.  But I suspect that is not really the objective of this SLEO III push at this time.

 

For 4 years now, I have seen you try and have the discussion with parents about addressing these issues in partnership with the schools to no avail so we as parents are partly to blame for the situation you are facing.  However, I am concerned that having made these security enhancements and hired the SLEO III officers, that there will be no further dialogue or quest for a solution for the actual issues.  Sadly, I believe that this band-aid will not hold and may even cause harm. 

 

So, since I still have a child in the District, it is important that you understand where I am coming from and that while I am supportive of your work in this District, I am unconvinced that paying for Eyes on the Door, Physical enhancements and the SLEO III is the appropriate use of tax payor dollars.  And I am concerned, that when the actual solution presents itself, we will have gone to the check book too many times to ask again.

 

--

Ayesha Hamilton, Esq.

Councilwoman, West Windsor

Attorney, Hamilton Law Firm, P.C.

Cell. (215) 738-0222.

 

 

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.