Transcript: West Windsor-Plainsboro Board of Education Class 3 Police Vote, June 26, 2018

Speaking:

Board Members Voting (WW denotes W. Windsor, P denotes Plainsboro):
YES, w/ comments: Michele Kaish (WW), Dana Krug (WW)
NO, w/ comments: Carol Herts (WW), Louisa Ho (WW)
YES w/out comment: Anthony Fleres (P), Rachel Juliana (P), Martin Whitfield (WW)
NO w/out comment: Isaac Cheng (P)

From the School District:
David Aderhold, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools;
Christopher Russo, Ed.D.,Assistant Superintendent for Finance / Board Secretary

Transcript of Discussion and Vote [minutes]

FLERES:

OK, that brings us to Administration and I'm going to call items 4 and 5 separately. Those are the Shared Service Agreements with the Townships. For people who don't know the lingo that's to set up an agreement with the Township to provide the Special Law Enforcement Class Three Officers to the schools. Both agreements are identical except for the names of the town and which mayor signs them. So we're gonna carry that as one vote. Can I have a motion on that? Michele and Rachel ... any ...

Before I open it up to discussion on the Board I just want to add that it's a difficult topic. There are certainly many opinions on it, and there's no guiding right or absolute right or wrong answer. And I've said this in other situations, reasonable people can disagree. We're gonna do what each Member thinks is best, and hope for the best as we go forward. I'll open it up for discussion now.

HERTS:

I have a question. I'd like to know, I think we all realize that the cost per year will be somewhere around $500,000 dollars, just to pay the officers. I'm wondering what is the training cost per year.

ADERHOLD:

That's inclusive of the training cost. So we built in 40 hours ...

HERTS:

I don't think so because in the Curriculum Committee we did a calculation based on $30 per hour per officer, and we came out with $500,000 that did not include any training.

ADERHOLD:

Contracts, specifically in the Shared Service Agreement talks about $485,000 per community. So that's inclusive of officers on both sides. And that does include in the budget that was provided to the Board of Education, that does include training hours of 60 hours per officer built into the budget. The officers' weekly calculation is calculated at 30 hours as well, weekly, but due to the Affordable Care Act, we have to calculate it 29 hours, to assure that there's not any kind of Affordable Care Act contribution or concern. So, there's salary for 8 officers at 30 hours, $288,000 if everyone worked the maximum number of hours. There's over $14,000 built in for the training budget, just for the hours alone. Then there's the SRO training rates as well, built in, and some additional cost.

HERTS:

So the training in the budget is $14,000?

ADERHOLD:

For the hours, for the hours.

HERTS:

So the 60 hours ...

ADERHOLD:

For each officer.

HERTS:

Per officer?

ADERHOLD:

Correct.

HERTS:

OK, and we're adding security vestibules to every school at a cost of millions of dollars, and we're adding possibly more video cameras, door locks, and ... what else are we adding security-wise?

ADERHOLD:

So if you have a security vestibule you're also gonna have some kind of security technology, some form of identification check, you're gonna look at classroom phones, you're gonna look at intercom systems, you're gonna look at strobe lights.

HERTS:

What does a strobe light do?

ADERHOLD:

Well if a school was to go into lockdown, and just, hypothetically, you're sitting in an orchestra classroom at Millstone River, and there's two hundred fourth- and fifth-graders on the stage, you're not gonna hear the intercom. So a strobe light would provide the warning signal.

HERTS:

It's like an alarm.

ADERHOLD:

It's a flashing ...

HERTS:

Visual alarm?

ADERHOLD:

It's a visual, flashing light for big common spaces. There's also a current provision standing in the Assembly and the Senate for the potential requirement for School Districts to have some kind of visual light by the roadside, to also then inform the public that there's some kind of lockdown or security matter underway, so individuals don't enter into the building. You're also talking about hallways, so for instance if you're eating lunch at High School North, and the school was to go into lockdown during lunch time, with 1,600 or 1,400 students eating at North or South, the chances of you hearing the intercom are slim to none. So it's those kind of measures that would go into place.

You're also talking about door hardware, for locks, video technology for video coverage throughout our buildings. And as the Board is well aware there's been opportunity where that video that we currently have has come in handy. But we're not, we nowhere have 100 percent coverage at any of our buildings let alone 50 percent coverage.

HERTS:

OK, in Union, New Jersey they have, the police officers do a park and walk to check on the school. So they ... Union Sergeant Anthony Cavallo sends Union police officers to township schools on a random basis. They enter schools on their post, randomly, at different times during the day. In Boston, the officers in the school are prohibited from carrying guns. In New York City, they ... the use of police officers in schools waned in the 1990s, and this Spring the Mayor dismissed the last officers, so there are now no police officers in New York City Schools. They are using community policing to protect the students.

FLERES:

What does that mean, community policing to protect the students?

HERTS:

Well it's similar to what Union, NJ is doing, where they walk randomly into schools.

We also heard a lot of public comments at the town Council meeting last night, where there are studies saying that there is absolutely no proof that having armed Class Three officers in schools is effective in any way.

So my position is that we are spending millions and millions of dollars ... just having a security vestibule at the front of every school is a huge increase in security for our schools. Far more security than we've ever had before. And the addition of all these other things is also very expensive, and more security. So if we're gonna spend all this money, why don't we do those things first, and then see what the result is, see if everyone's satisfied with that, see if it works well for our schools, before we jump to this next, very expensive, very invasive step of having police officers in the building at all times.

I think we should do this on a step basis, and not just plunge ahead with everything, with no proof this would actually be effective at all.

FLERES:

Thank you. Anyone else want to make a comment?

HO:

OK, I've spent a fair amount of time talking to people and thinking about the Class Three officer issue. From talking to people, there's no clear consensus in our community. Our community is divided on this issue. I've heard form people who are passionately in favor, passionately opposed, and in the middle. One person told me he was opposed, but he wouldn't be mad at me if we did it.

You know if you look at the past, there are cases when School Resource Officers have helped shorten an incident and there are cases when they have not. It's hard to balance the cost in terms of both money and the school environment against the risks. And the rate of school shootings, while still very low, has been rapidly accelerating. So you can't really look to the past 10 or 15 years to reach any conclusions, because the last year or two doesn't look like the last, the 10 or 15 years that came before it. The risks seem highest in the high schools and the middle schools.

You know, I trust our Administration and they tell, they talk about, there are many benefits to having the officers in the schools. I trust the West Windsor Police to be able to do this as well as it can be done. I've gone from my initial reaction—which I don't know if Dave knew was "No way"—to "'yes,' for the high schools and 'probably' for the middle schools," but I still can't see it for the elementary schools. We have an obligation to provide security for our students and staff, but we also need to be fiscally responsible. I would hope that we could focus on the high schools first, where I think the risks and the needs are higher.

I just feel like there has to be a more cost effective way to do security at the elementary schools, rather than having both Eyes on the Door and police officers. I feel like there's a better way that we could approach doing that.

FLERES:

Thank you. Anyone else?

HERTS:

I want to just add that, I have huge respect for the West Windsor Police and their work on this issue, and full confidence that if they were in the schools they would do it in the best possible way. But I just don't think that it's a wise idea to do this now, and from the people I have spoken to, it's overwhelmingly the community is against this. There's a small minority who is for it. But almost, by a huge, huge discrepancy, most people I talked to are not in favor of this.

FLERES:

Now Michele's gonna speak ...

KAISH:

I wish that we did not have to consider the hiring of police officers in our schools. It make me incredibly sad that there is even one parent who sends a child to school in the morning who didn't come home in the afternoon. It makes me incredibly sad that ensuring safety and security in our schools has required so much money and conversation. But this is the new normal. Safety and security must be paramount in all School Board considerations.

Now our School Board—you may not realize this—but our School Board has been having conversations about police in schools for as long as I can remember. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook I was adamant in my position: it was "No way." I distinctly remember telling Dr. Aderhold, "No way do I want to see police in our schools." But that was five years ago, and my position has evolved. Times have changed. The violence and subsequent news stories have continued. Laws have adjusted to meet new needs. And I have a better understanding of the role of a Class Three officer in our schools.

The Shared Service Agreement that appears on tonight's agenda is neither reactionary nor impulsive. It really has been years in the making. My support for the hiring of Class Three officers developed over time and, for the record, became solidified when the Board had a lengthy and in-depth discussion on this topic at our retreat last December, which was two months before the incident in Parkland.

I appreciate the time, thought and research invested by our Superintendent and law enforcement officials in coming to this recommendation, and I thank them for addressing anticipated concerns as best that they can. I know that they are fully committed to hiring and training the best candidates in these roles. I also appreciate the Emails, texts, phone calls and conversations that I have had with members of the community on all sides of this issue. Reasonable minds will disagree, but listening and understanding to the concerns of all can only help in making better decisions.

This is not a vote about guns. When I vote "yes" on the Shared Service Agreement tonight, I'm voting for community policing, relationship building, and threat deterrence. I'm voting to hire people who have years of experience and training in the protection of diverse communities. I'm voting to encourage a cultures of "See something, say something" to a trusted adult. I'm voting to reduce response time, assist in conflict resolution, promote safety, and hopefully prevent any potential dangerous situation. I'm voting to have professionals help us in our crisis management and emergency preparedness. And I'm voting to hire the very people that we would call in the event of an emergency.

As we consider all options to ensure that teachers and staff can do what they're hired to do, so that students can safely grow, learn and thrive in WW-P, I believe the hiring of Class Three officers is the insurance policy that we need. I hope it never happens, and I hope we never need it. But in the event of a crisis in any one of our schools, I don't want to look back and wonder what we could have done to ensure a better outcome.

FLERES:

Thank you. Anyone else?

KRUG:

A couple things I wanted to share. For the ... as Michele has said, we, for the past few months, we've had, the Board has been discussing the possibility of having Class Three officers in the schools. And I've been reading information that community members have sent the Board, and been at many meetings and events in which I listened to residents give me their take on this topic. And I want to thank them for reaching out to us, and to me in particular, and I want to thank the Administration and both West Windsor and Plainsboro Police Departments for their really careful and thoughtful presentations and crafting of the Shared Service Agreement.

I just wanted to share a little bit of my own experience with the community policing in our schools, and how this is shaping my vote. My children, as many of the other children in this District, have all experienced the D.A.R.E. program in the fifth grade. For those who are unfamiliar with this program, the fifth graders at both upper elementary schools have police officers come to the school on a regular basis for several months, and teach the kids about various safety topics. From bike safety, cyber safety, drug and alcohol and all those things. The program ends with the D.A.R.E. Splash, which is like a pool party, run by the police officers. A couple of years ago, my fifth grader at the time won the D.A.R.E. culminating essay contest, and the reward for winning this contest was a special tour of the police station, a ride in the police car, with me as the parent and one of my child's friends. This was an amazing experience. These two fifth graders had such a wonderful rapport with the D.A.R.E. officer, and this is what community policing is about.

I wish that we lived in a time in which we did not have to worry about mass shootings in schools. I wish that lockdowns and active shooter drills were not mandated by the State. The times have changed over the last twenty years, and I believe that our District needs to support community policing, not just for the unthinkable events, that have happened in Parkland, Florida, or Santa Fe, Texas, or Sandy Hook in Connecticut, but for the more typical everyday occurrences for teaching students about safety and for building community. And that's why I'm going to be supporting this initiative.

FLERES:

Thank you. Anyone else? OK I'm gonna call the vote now.

RUSSO:

OK, we'll start with Mr. Cheng.

HERTS:

What are we voting on?

FLERES:

Items 4 and 5.

RUSSO:

Oh you are voting on 4 and 5.

FLERES:

Only 4 and 5.

RUSSO:

OK. [Pointing at Cheng] That was a "no." Ms. Herts?

HERTS:

No.

RUSSO:

Ms. Ho?

HO:

No.

RUSSO:

Ms. Juliana?

JULIANA:

Yes.

RUSSO:

Ms. Krug?

KRUG:

Yes.

RUSSO:

Mr. Whitfield?

WHITFIELD:

Yes.

RUSSO:

Ms. Kaish?

KAISH:

Yes.

RUSSO:

Mr. Fleres?

FLERES:

Yes.

RUSSO:

Five-three.

FLERES:

OK, thank you.

RUSSO:

In favor.

FLERES:

I'll just add a little closing. There were a lot of comments made over the past, maybe its ... really started getting discussed in March, between social media, between Board meetings, at the Council meeting. What I would say is that it opened a lot of people's eyes of different concerns that people have, and in my mind hopefully it ... the idea, it ... shows a need for community policing, that made people have different misconcep— mis— different perceptions of what will be going on, on both sides of the group. Certainly the Administration and the Police, they see what the Public says, it gave everybody an opportunity to speak. Maybe we'll all just listen to each other, and be mindful of other people's thoughts as we go forward, other people's opinions, and hopefully we can make a success out of the future year.

[Class Three discussion concludes at 30:38 into the video]