BY STEVEN JUPITER
We live in a world where every parent worries about what might happen when their kids head off to school. Every time we hear about yet another school shooting, we’re reminded of our children’s vulnerability, of the leap of faith we take every time we let them out of our sight. Statistically, the odds of a school shooting may be small, but statistics do little to calm an anxious parent’s fears.
On February 8 of this year, just a few weeks ago, someone played a sick prank on schools across Vermont, calling 911 to report school shootings that never happened, triggering the mobilization of every available local resource. It happened at our own Otter Valley. Police and ambulances from Brandon and Pittsford descended on the school, hoping to prevent a worse situation than the one they’d been told was already unfolding.
We were fortunate that no one was hurt; the “shooting” was a hoax. But the fear it instilled in the community was real. Many local residents immediately called for an increased police presence in town and at our schools. Brandon had only one officer on duty at the time, a seemingly insufficient frontline defense. Maybe if we’d had law enforcement already at the school—a School Resource Officer (SRO)—we wouldn’t have had to rely on law enforcement coming from elsewhere, perhaps arriving just seconds too late to prevent the worst.
And so last night, the Brandon Selectboard authorized the Brandon Police Department (BPD) to hire an SRO. BPD had already worked out a written arrangement directly with the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union (RNESU)—the district in which Brandon and Otter Valley fall. The Selectboard simply had to provide its approval to get the ball rolling. Except for Tim Guiles, the board gave an enthusiastic green light to the plan. (See today’s front-page article for details.)
BPD and the yet-to-be-hired SRO absolutely deserve our respect and the benefit of the doubt, but we must also proceed with caution. We are not simply hiring security: we are authorizing the permanent presence of a gun around our children. Whether we support the program or not, the reality is that we are changing the dynamic of the school in a significant way. The SRO may not wear a conventional uniform, but they will be an employee of BPD with all the powers of any other police officer.
BPD Chief David Kachajian addressed these concerns at the meeting, concerns which were raised primarily by Mr. Guiles, assuring the room that the SRO would receive specialized training and would in many ways act more like a counselor than a cop. The picture that the Chief, and others present, painted of the warm rapport between SROs and students was comforting, but we won’t know until we know. We won’t know how our particular SRO deals with unruly kids, how they handle sudden outbursts of violence between students, how they manage the stress of the position, until we see that person in action. The same could be said for any hire, but most of us have never had to hire someone to carry a gun around our kids before.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RNESU and BPD, which outlines the parameters of the SRO program, is a thorough, thoughtful document. Clearly, much care went into its creation. It lays out a structure both to enable and constrain the SRO. It’s available to the public on the Town of Brandon’s website, as part of the packet for the February 27 Selectboard meeting. We encourage everyone to read it so we’re all aware of what we’ve agreed to.
We must trust that everyone involved has the welfare of our kids and community first and foremost in their hearts. But we must also be prepared to change course if it becomes apparent that the program isn’t working, if it becomes apparent that the presence of a police officer in school isn’t the solution we’d hoped it would be, or if the specific SRO we’ve hired turns out to be ill-suited to the job. The initial contract with the SRO will be for just one year. Let’s see how the first year goes.
