foreign [Music] um [Music] Dana are we we're sharing [Music] 14th no she just emailed us an agenda earlier today but all she emailed Dana said this wasn't it they're still talking foreign could be worse that's fine oh there's oh [ __ ] oh I don't know I don't know what I'm gonna do with her this one right here right here oh we were back there doing good things oh I gotta Catch My Breath yeah we are good evening it is Thursday September 14th 2023 at 7 pm we are at the district service center in Cottage Grove Minnesota for a special board meeting we'd like to acknowledge that the land on which We Gather is the land of the middle walkington Dakota people means dweller of Spirit Lake our first item on the agenda is our roll call Dana Eric tessmer Louise Heins here pet Driscoll here Melinda Doles here Katie Schwartz here Sammy petne here Sharon Van Lear here next will you please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance indivisible with liberty and justice for all next is 3.0 and that is the approval of our agenda can I get a motion to approve the agenda moved by Katie seconded by Eric any discussion comments seeing none all those in favor oppose motion is carried next on our agenda is 4.0 and that's discussion items 4.1 is the school resource officer's contract with the City of Woodbury that will be introduced this evening by our superintendent Julie Nielsen thank you the purpose of this meeting this evening is to consider the next steps following the suspension of the contract between the City of Woodbury and South Washington County schools that has been in place since 2009. the contract provided one school resource officer at both Woodbury and East Ridge high schools through this contract the school district was able to contract the school resource officers for a total approximate cost of 140 140 000 a year for the year 2023. in a meeting on Friday September 8th with the city administrator the public safety director and the City of woodbury's attorney we were informed that as a result of the closed session on Wednesday September 6th the city council had made the decision to unilaterally suspend the contract and remove the officers from our schools the city administrator shared that the council did not feel that the city could fulfill the contract in good faith knowing the personal risk that the sros would be taking the city council did Express he shared that the city council did Express different feelings about providing patrol officer Patrol officers for school events like football games and agreed that that service would come at a no cost to the district our role at this meeting on Friday really was to listen we had not been invited to the closed session so it was to listen and ask clarifying questions the offer on the table remained to suspend the contract and offer free services at large events again like football games as we were meeting the conversations between the City of Woodbury and the school district continued public safety director shared that the current sros would continue to work their Monday through Friday schedule and not be on regular Patrol the goal in the interim would be to keep them in the area in addition the hope would be to work out a plan to have regular walk-throughs through the schools to still have a presence at the schools and provide patrols through the area this is an option that the school board will need to discuss this evening as we were not at the table to make decisions or to negotiate the school district at that same time as we were talking about options asked if there was a way that we could continue to have them at school and not have them physically intervene this would allow them to continue to be present and building the important relationships that are at the foundation of our work in the event of an altercation or a crisis the district would call for an outside officer and would not have the SRO intervene at all we would also be open to altering the contract as it stated for the large events that the city spoke about while both sides as we wrapped up the meeting talked about those potential options it was not the venue or the time because the interested parties were not at the table and the purpose again was for the city to provide us with the guidance that came out of the city's closed session it was shared by the city administrator that his hands were tied because the city council gave him clear Direction on that decision the school district was provided no information from a city official until Tuesday September 5th at 1207 PM the closed session was on September 6th we value the work of our sros and the role they play in our schools we thought that our school district was different and that our previous work clarifying roles and responsibilities demonstrated how we have worked together we wish that we could have been part of the conversation so that together we could have transitioned to a plan that did not just have our sros leave our schools with a one-day notice I believe that we can still work together to come up with a solution that keeps our students and their safety at the heart of our work at this time I'm going to turn it over to Mick waltzberger our district attorney to talk about the options that the school board has related to the suspended contract good evening is this on here on here can't tell have a light one way or another okay I'm on all right as was mentioned the decision was made in closed session and that's unfortunate the day of the closed session for the city council I had a conversation with the city attorney I thank you I think that one is still on the microphone Dina this one's not I'll slide over to here a little further away that's a good way to accomplish that for you making me move further away all right so as I mentioned I had a conversation with the city attorney on the 6th of September the day that the city council is meeting in closed session I shared my concerns about the meeting taking place in closed session specifically that there was not a legitimate legal basis for going into closed session I also shared my concern that you know Noah body had made any kind of threats of litigation at that point that would warrant a closed session and that this is precisely the kind of action that should happen in closed session like this so everybody can hear you know give and take in terms of the factors that are considered and are fully informed of the decisions after the meeting in closed session the council itself did not articulate its decisions it didn't come back and take action so we're relying on what the city administrator public safety director and City attorney informed us at the meeting on Friday and they told us that the actions of the council here were really based on a change in the law and that change in the law took effect on July 1 of this year and it's unclear why the council did not act until the first week of school more than two weeks two months later given that the law took effect on July 1 but nonetheless it that was the explanation given to us that there was a change in the law I want to review for you what the change in the law was because there's a lot of confusion about it there were really three relevant amendments to the law and the First Amendment and these all occurred again in 2023 the First Amendment deals with prone restraints and it essentially says that not only School District employees but now also school resource officers and security personnel and police officers contracted with the district are prohibited from using prone restraints and a pronoun straight is simply a face down position you're not allowed to put students in a face down position so that's our first change in the law and that shouldn't be something that's problematic you know for officers who are working with kids the Second Amendment is what I'm going to call no compressive restraints so there is an amendment to the law which prohibits School District employees agents and school resource officers security personnel and police officers who are contracted with the district from using any compressive restraint techniques and specifically you're not allowed to use a physical hold that restricts or impairs a student's ability to breathe restricts or impairs a student's ability to communicate distress places pressure or weight on a student's head throat neck chest lung sternum diaphragm back or abdomen or results in straddling a student's torso those are all prohibited and the concern from the officer's side is that you know if you come in and and put a bear hug on a student to try to break up a fight you're putting pressure on the sternum and on the back right and so that's a concern but there's an exception to the law that still continues to apply and that's the reasonable Force exception and there was a change to that but it still exists what the law says is that reasonable force is still permitted and the amendment to the law says a school district employee a school bus driver or other agent of the district which could be interpreted to include an SRO in exercising their lawful Authority may use reasonable Force when it's necessary under the circumstances to restrain a student to prevent bodily harm or death to the student or others it used to say that you were allowed to use reasonable Force to restrain a student or prevent bodily harm or death and so it's been restricted you're only allowed to restrain now when bodily harm or death is a possibility and so you can't just intervene physically for the purposes of restraining sros May no longer use Force for the sole purpose of for example restraining a student who is damaging property causing a disturbance or acting out in any other way that doesn't present a risk of harm of or a threat of bodily harm to sell for others or death now again to be clear you can still use reasonable Force student has a weapon knife gun something like that and putting aside some of the hyperbole that we hear I want to break down and have you think about this a little bit what do we want people doing in the schools first of all all School staff are subject to these same standards or higher standards we're not asking sros to be held to a higher standard the legislature hasn't asked sros to be held to a higher standard than what has long been the case for School District employees and what the legislature is saying is when you're in the school building you got to act kind of like the school folks do and you have to be held to standards that say we're not going to physically intervene when there's just potential risk of property damage when there's disruptive conduct and if it was your own child I want you to think about if it's your own child and your child had a bad day had a mental break had special needs and was damaging property do you want a police officer physically intervening to address that or would you want some other means of intervention if possible again we all know if there's bodily harm threatened or death absolutely we want the officer to be able to intervene but that's what the law is really saying so that's that's where the changes come into play by the way I want to mention as well that not only are School District employees held to that same standard they actually have a higher standard they can't physically intervene unless there's imminent bodily harm or death being threatened so I want to talk now for a minute about the contract because you heard that the city council has made a decision in closed session to suspend indefinitely the contract that is between the the city and the district and it is a legally binding contract to provide SRO Services through the end of the 2023-2024 school year as superintendent Nielsen said it's been in place since 2009 it renews automatically unless either party gives notice that they're terminating it and they have to get that notice by March 31st with termination effective January 1 of the following year now when we're told that the contract is was suspended we asked at that meeting for how long and nobody knows the answer to that and so an indefinite suspension of a contract is essentially a termination of the contract the city is in short unilaterally meaning without us being at the table having a say in the matter and willfully meaning intentionally breaching a contract under which they have legal obligations at this time the district has not threatened and to my knowledge has not even considered legal action against the city rather up to this point in time the district has considered and focused on collaborative Solutions but it is my job to outline for you what your legal options are the district certainly could sue the city to compel specific performance of the contract and I do believe you're highly likely to Prevail if we do that the district could also sue for compensatory damages and given the willful nature of the breach of contract I believe you could also recover attorney's fees if you were to bring that kind of a claim because they naturally flow from an intentional and willful breach of contract as part of the lawsuit the district could reasonably assert the council members have acted in bad faith because they knowingly took an action which they knew to be in excess of their lawful Thirty they're Bound by a contract and they're just saying we're going to walk away from it even though we're legally Bound by it that's a problem and I would note that if I were a council member I personally will be concerned I would be concerned that if a tragedy happened in the schools and an SRO is not there and could have avoided it or mitigated it that I would be held personally liable for a decision to knowingly act in excess of my authority and remove those officers from the school that's a problem and I would be concerned about that as stated in my earlier communication or in earlier Communications from the district to the city the city didn't consult with the district before making decisions instead they met in closed session and we didn't have any opportunity to address concerns or offer Solutions we as superintendent Nielsen said we offered the solution of saying okay there'd be no physical intervention from officers we don't expect them to physically intervene in our schools our staff will continue to accept the risk that they face every single day while the officers don't have to do that we're taking them out of Harm's Way while our staff continue every day to be In Harm's Way and that was unacceptable to them in making that request we let them know that to our knowledge we had not had a single incident in the last school year in which an officer had been involved in a physical intervention with students we also emphasized that to us the value and important and Central role of the SRO is relationship building it's not there to be a heavy it's not there to physically intervene it's so much more than that and I want to just say too I know the administrators very much value the sros who are there they are doing a great job there is great relationship building that's happening there's great work between the administration and the essros students have a level of trust with them they perform a very very valuable role but that is a far different role than being the heavy or being the physical intervener and contrary to what sometimes you might hear in the media officers sros are not the First Responders for student behaviors at school it is the staff every single time officers aren't they get called in of course when we have things like weapons and they do they're trained they have Knowledge and Skills we don't have that our staff don't have but they're not the First Responders the staff are always always the First Responders other than a weapon situation so unfortunately we were told that the council had considered that option specifically and had specifically rejected it we were told that the officers would be willing to conduct regular walk-throughs and I want to talk to you about the legal implications of that meaning regular walk-throughs of the schools so first of all it was kind of presented as a take it or leave it you know this is what we're willing to do we're not negotiating talking there are no other options as superintendent Nielsen said the city administrator said that the direction he received from the council was clear there was no room for discussion or negotiation of other options but the so having officers regularly walk through the buildings why is that a problem are school buildings are not open to the public they're open to our employees agents and contracted folks like sros to come through and we can't just allow officers to walk through the building without opening up that Forum at least arguably to allow other members of the public media to just come into our buildings and walk through there's no special right of an officer just to walk through our buildings and on top of that it wholly defeats the purpose of the SRO program having officers who don't know the kids come in we don't have the relationship building that the whole SRO program is founded on so for from our standpoint legally that doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint it doesn't make sense and we'd also note that there it can create an intimidating environment officers who kids don't know just walking through the halls and the office for civil rights which is a division of the U.S Department of Education has repeatedly told schools that we're not supposed to be using officers or including us roles in a heavy-handed manner or in any way that creates a an environment of intimidation that might deter students from attending school they're there to address crimes deter crimes and again do that through relationship building with the students so we don't want to get on the opposite side of of OCR and have a complaint brought against the district there was a also an offer to have officers present at special events like football games and legally I have no objection to that I think that that's from a district standpoint that that is a sensible option if they're willing to do that and in fact we would call 9-1-1 and have officers respond in the event of a crime in any event uh I want to go back I've missed one thing I was going to mention too about the having the officers walk through the hallways one other concern I would have if I were an SRO for an officer is is that just a subterfuge what we're saying yeah we're not Contracting with you but yet you're in our buildings sort of as in our agents anyway I'm not sure how that would shake out for officers in any event and if that puts them in any better position the district's focus in my communications has been on safety and well-being being of the students again the relationships built with sros and their relationships with students and we want to continue to focus on that and the safety and well-being of students there are some other options you could consider in addition to what the city is presented one option you could accept termination of the contract you could end the SRO program altogether you could hire private security I'm not recommending that because from everything I hear the SRO program works they have relationships with kids it takes time to build those relationships those folks on the ground in the buildings from everything I'm hearing are doing a great job and so is that that's not something I'm recommending but certainly my job to present that to you as an option since the city is saying we're walking away from the contract for some indefinite period of time you certainly have that option if you want it you can sit tight and see if the council reconsiders I have no idea what their appetite is or what they may or may not do it doesn't sound like a special session is on the horizon a lot of these cities who have decided to take this kind of an action you know they they may be reconsidering based on financial implications and maybe a a different interpretation of law than what they first saw and what they first heard coming out there so I think that's certainly an option and bottom line is you shouldn't be paying for any Services you're not receiving so if they're not providing Services during a period of time they're not providing Services the district shouldn't be paying for those so those are my comments um I'm happy to answer questions I'm sure you may have some questions about the contract about the new laws that went into effect if you have other options that you've thought of that you'd like to you know bounce off me in terms of a from a legal standpoint I'm happy to consider those and entertain those and again hopefully we can move forward in a more collaborative manner than what's happened so far questions first members yes ma'am got a few um sir you talked about some of the intricacies of law I dispute some of it um I don't know that it really forwards this discussion to to talk about some of the things I dispute but you know you're indicating some of the intricacies such as Pro and restraint and and that you I guess your interpretation is that perhaps it doesn't open up officers or or sros to as much liability as as perhaps the City of Woodbury thinks I beg to differ most bites or physical altercations that begin on one's feet end up on the ground and the experience that I've had is that people end up on their stomach inevitably putting them in a prone restraint so I think that this is at the Crux of the issue as far as the city's concerned for the individual sros in the building and to go along with that you mentioned that last year there wasn't any I guess physical altercations in the two high schools that's great I'm happy to hear that I don't think it's good policy moving forward to say well we didn't have any issues last year I don't know what's going to happen the next year so to me that's an irrelevant point if moving on teachers accepting additional risks you said that teachers were okay accepting additional risks are you certain of that did you confer with the teachers in general I have a hard time believing that teachers are okay accepting additional risk to get involved in potential physical altercations very hard time believing that uh secondly or moving on the entire this entire situation creates a gray area it creates a gray area for civil and criminal liability not just for the city in general but for the individual officer it it's it's irrelevant I mean you could you could talk about well we don't think this is going to happen if this particular situation arises and we don't think this is going to happen if this particular situation arises but what it does is it leaves extreme question marks in the minds of those individual officers that are in the building as well as the Risk Managers for the city and that's why this happened now as far as the process goes uh you know the law was signed I guess into law on July 1st like you said and why did it take that long I have no idea I don't know how lawyers work I guess they took a while to figure this one out part of the problem was is that this particular statute was buried in the bowels of the Minnesota education bill probably for a reason so nobody would find it and it probably took that long for them to find it and then try to unravel what it meant exactly irregard regardless the process is okay maybe problematic maybe it would have been nice if we would have been brought to the table but we weren't we weren't brought to the table you can you can discuss and you could talk about why that was a problem or why that shouldn't or should not have happened but the reality is is it happened my concern is this right now you've got the City of Woodbury okay who's been in partnership with district 833 for what since 2009 at least and we've had a good partnership in this regard I think that it is prudent for us to understand okay that in order to keep that partnership and that relationship at least viable for the years moving forward because this is a temporary legislature no doubt and perhaps things will change hopefully they will and as we move forward I think it's important to keep this relationship intact so before we make any kind of decisions punitive as such toward the City of Woodbury or decisions that might cause a greater Rift between the two entities I think it's prudent for us to understand where the responsibility for this bill lies and the responsibility for this bill lies first of all and foremost at the feet of whatever stage one thinkers decided to put it together and put the specific language they did in the bill secondly with whoever voted for it most likely without properly reading it and understanding it before they voted for it and then by the individual that signed it into law okay and the reason why I say this or the reason why I'm bringing this up is not to bash a particular political party or whoever's running the state government the reason why I say this is because it's very important that we understand this okay because this type of thing gets dumped on us at the local level it gets dumped on the school boards the individual municipalities for us to deal with and it's not we didn't create this problem City of Woodbury didn't create this problem district 833 didn't create this problem lawmakers in Saint Paul created this problem and we need to understand that so before we go making rash decisions that are going to cause decades long perhaps Rifts that are going to at the end of the day cause our schools to be less safe our teachers to be less safe our students to be less safe we need to understand where the responsibility for this belongs it's very very important we understand that and I mean everybody in this room needs to understand that legal counsel needs to understand that and the greater voting base in the state needs to understand that uh I don't know if a lot of questions a lot to take in I can I can refresh I can refresh uh prone restraint like I talked about to begin with these are these are volatile situations they're Dynamic we have no idea where they're going to go it's it's just look I can't accept it's too easy to to well we haven't had any uh physical altercations in the schools you know Pro and restraint is defined as this Leelee look these situations when they go south they go south okay and who's on Hook when they go south we all know who's on the hook when they go south okay this is why the City of Woodbury doesn't want their people in the school system so I don't know what you have to I guess respond to that or I don't even know if that's a question but are you ready absolutely yeah all right board member Testament thank you for your comments so first of all you stated that you disputed the interpretation of law I didn't actually hear anything that was different from what you said than what I said in terms of what the law says except that you talked about most fights end up with somebody on the ground and people end up on their stomach and that's a proneary street and that's not true in the school system sir it's simply not there's no evidence to support that that's true it might be true out in the community at large but again we had it's relevant that nobody no officer physically intervened last year because we don't have that happening in the schools and I'm proud that we don't have that happening in the schools okay but also hang on let me you I'd give you an opportunity also when we talk about prone restraint keep in mind there's still that exception for reasonable Force you know if it's bodily harm or death going to occur there's still that exception and so and there are wonderful Publications I'd encourage you the Minnesota County's Insurance trust put out a wonderful publication very balanced in terms of what can and can't be done and there's lots of hypotheticals in there and it talks about for example a situation where two students are engaged in a fight and how that does present a risk of bodily harm and how you may use the reasonable Force exception to intervene there and so without and again they talk about the attorney general's opinion and how that is binding and that you can rely on that so this is not me this is an agency that represents counties across the state it ensures them it says if you're a liable mcit is the one who pays the bill and that's who's writing this and saying we have protections there for both their dollar payment and for the officers you said that I said it was okay with teachers that they're accepting additional risks that's not what I said what I said is that teachers face that risk every day they go into work and they face that risk every day and you're saying that officers should face some lesser risk than the teachers do and on top of it I said that teachers have a higher legal standard they have to meet they have to meet the imminent bodily harm and death standard you just have the bodily harm and death standard so one's a threat and the other is really like in imminent it's going to happen kind of a thing again whether they're okay with it I don't have a basis for saying they're not but whether they live with that every day they certainly do live with that every single day in terms of a gray area for symbol and criminal liability you know I just point you back to the attorney general's opinion and the agencies that insure and pay the bills when things come up to respond that you mentioned that it's temporary legislation and maybe there'll be clarification that would be great if you know I think everyone would benefit from some clarification but we don't know whether and when that's going to happen I have not heard anything change since the governor's announcement of not holding a special session and again we're just speculating then to say at some point in time this may or may not change so what do we do in the interim are we looking at a year are we looking at two is there going to be the political momentum for it to change I don't know any of those things and you don't either and that's the problem we can sit and speculate about it but we just don't know how the law will or won't change and you said who's on the hook when things go south yeah unfortunately it's usually the school staff who are on the hook when things go south and especially since they're the ones who are intervening physically not the not the sros s teachers are in a bad spot they're a really bad spot um there's there's entities to blame for that we won't go into it as far as some of what your responses were to my questions a lot of what you're saying to me the way I understand it or interpret it is that this kind of thing hasn't happened and we don't think it will because it hasn't in the past that doesn't give me much comfort I mean I understand what you're saying as far as well in our experience most fights in the schools don't end up on the ground I don't I mean do we have research to back that up I have no I don't know where that comes from and furthermore it doesn't matter if if that's what we've seen in the past what if that hap what if that starts happening more there is more violence in schools nowadays I think that's probably safe to say and if there's more violence in schools between students that means there's more potential for intervention whether it's teachers or sros or whatever it is and if that's the case there's more of a potential for people to end up on the ground breaking the statute that was put into place on July 1st which is a problem it's I mean I'm not trying to just say boohoo to the sros and the cops that respond I mean teachers look they're working in a disastrous environment in many cases I mean there's discipline breakdowns in most schools that we didn't have in the past for whatever reason I mean I don't even want to get into that but this law certainly adds to that problem in my personal opinion well you can come back to me I got a few more okay okay if I could just respond to that and um you know the the relevance of the fact that it hasn't happened in the past year is what allows us to say to the city we're not expecting your sros to intervene physically unless there is that true you know clear what we said is clear threat of physical harm bodily harm or death otherwise we're not expecting them to intervene physically and if they do intervene physically under those circumstances they then have the protection because the reasonable Force exception on the law applies including for coronary students physical holds Etc that exception overrides if there is you know if we have a reasonable Force scenario that's permitted and so that's what we're telling them that's why I think it is relevant so I'll take next question so if if there's a if there's a if there's a student that's creating property damage let's say or just having some kind of an episode like that what are we supposed to do with that at the same thing School staff have to do we have to stand by and try to intervene in a non-physical manner using de-escalation techniques and words rather than physically and sometimes it can be really tough it really can and you know we see damage happening but the the policy of the state whether you like it I like it or anybody up here or anyone in the room like I said the current policy of the state is not to intervene physically and a lot of people would say that's a good thing some people obviously you're saying that's not a good thing but property in schools for a long time for many many many years well not many many so roughly five years the law has been that school staff could not physically intervene in the event of property damage only in the event of bodily harm I have a question okay um I'm thinking about the the suggestion that the sros are in a position where they don't intervene physically and thinking about that makes me think that there is actually a difference in what the district is considering the purpose and role of an SRO versus what the city is considering the purpose and the role of an SRO and I'm wondering if that goes back to 2009 or if there's a feeling that something has changed along the way you know somewhere we started this and hopefully the philosophies were closer together I don't know if there's any background you can give me on that yeah you know Louise what I would share is that I think over the past eight to ten years we've really clarified and worked with the cities on what the roles and responsibilities are of our sros when they're involved in meetings when they're involved with conversations and really streamlining it to be really when it's absolutely necessary that they're involved not just part of the administrative team you know not breaking up daily fights that I mean the role is clearly defined and I think Christine Schaefer who's not able to be here this evening she would share that working with the sros has been very positive working with the building principles that we've had positive relationships in terms of everyone understanding what the true role is of our sros and again at the foundation as we talked about it is the relationships and knowing the kids and and having conversations with them out in the hallways while they're eating lunch um but actually I would say over the last eight to ten years we have gotten more clear about what those expectations are yeah I just wanted to make a comment to Mark or Eric I'm sorry um as a former principal and a special education teacher we are under those restrict we do we never have been able to do prone restraints on children and we do have to let them destroy the room if that's what they're going to do and to keep the other children safe we cannot touch them we can't not um you know it's it's not a good thing to do with a special needs student especially they get more upset but they do calm down there are techniques that everyone's trained in the administration there's a team of people who help out the special ed people and yes people do get hurt I've had people on my staff get hurt it's minor things no one's ever been in a situation where they were hospitalized or anything like that but they have had you know injuries to their body and broken glasses and things like that it's all material things and it's not as it's not something that you want to you know take a student down and hold them and that's never done enough school so yeah I just want to start off first by saying that um I have the utmost respect for all of our sros and I I wish they were still in the middle schools even but the fact remains that the reason that we have our sros is to be present and to have those relationship buildings and I don't see this as really changing much from what our sros were already doing because it does have that clause in there about the preventing bodily harm and Eric when you talked about the fights and students throwing fists at each other that would be a bodily harmed thing and even if you're talking about a kid that is destroying a room tearing things up obviously the de-escalation would be to get all the other students out of there but if it ends up in a situation where that student is throwing chairs which could become a weapon at someone then we go right back to that you're preventing bodily harm so it's really I see it as a situation where they they should be held up to the same standards as the teachers and um you know de-escalation techniques work we've been doing them since the beginning of time I would love to see us somehow be able to work this out because I do really want to have the SR our O's in our school they do handle things you know when we do need them there for those emergency situations when there are weapons like at Eastridge last year with the soft gun situation that was handled very very well and quickly and it was very impressive but I think right now you know this is something that the legislative um did to kind of go along with everything else that was happening um with lawsuits with those type of holds in our society and I I just hope there's a way that we can work this out um I think focusing on the law we can't change the law I mean we can't change what was voted on we have not a thing what we have to look at is the situation at hand situation at hand is we have two cities where our high schools are we have one city that is able to take this law and still provide the high school with sros we have one city that has decided to break a contract do an open meeting or do a closed session that was not that went against open meaning loss and they are the ones that are taking this and they are the ones that are putting these students at risk they're the ones that are doing that not the district not the legislators the city that has decided to do this because there are multiple cities throughout the state that still have sros they still have them in their community so what we need to get back to is what are we going to do because of this we have options I know there's another city in Washington County that uses Washington County Sheriff says they're sros that's an option we can look at then we don't have to worry about if this Partnership if they've decided to break this partnership and Woodbury is the one that has decided to wreck this relationship not the district the City of Woodbury has decided to wreck this relationship I think they should be held liable for it I think that we should go after them we should get damages we should seek anything we can because it is a breach of contract they gave us no notice we literally had what three days and then we were told nope they're not there anymore we had no cause no way to react so we need to get us out the law what the law is hoping that they change it hoping that anything we can't hope we can't wish we need to act we need to make sure that our kids are safe in our schools which they are with or without these sros I'm not saying that but if we can have someone there that these kids can trust I can tell you right now I had a child at Park High School with special needs he was deathly afraid of police officers he has autism we got in an accident one time I could not they could not get him out of a car because he was definitely afraid of him he built a relationship with an SRO at Park High School and he is no longer afraid of police officers he did have a chance where he needed to be de-escalated he was walking through the hallway that officer walked behind him made sure he was safe never had to touch him if he would have went after him or tried to put him in a position because he was hitting the the walls or something he would be deathly afraid of police officers still there are things that we can do and these sros are in those schools to build those relationships they are not there to break up the fights because I can tell you the teachers are there because the teachers are right there the teachers are in the classrooms they're going to get there before that SRO even has a chance to get there and they do deal with it so again I think we need to stop worrying about what the law is and look at what we can do and we need to react accordingly sure um I mean I I agree with Katie that there's no point in discussing what the legislature has done because it's not in our purview I did have a couple questions before 2009 in the um start of this SRO program what did we do in our schools I didn't know if you had the previous contract I believe there was a previous contract in place so we had sros we didn't go back to say when did they start we just had the most recent contact that renewed yearly in 2009 okay or from 2009. and so what do schools without sros so so what do what what do schools that don't have sros do and I know that there are some school districts that don't have them as a matter of policy um what do they do to do this kind of relationship building and student safety yeah I would say when it comes to relationship building as we met and started the school year off we talked about with bus drivers nutrition services paraprofessionals custodians everyone that serves as a School District staff member were all responsible for relationships and depending on the student it might be that relationship with a custodian it may be that relationship as they go through the lunch line and so we continue to build relationships relationships are not just the sole responsibility of one person and I think it takes teachers and staff being out in the hallway greeting students in the morning so that you can listen to conversations that you can interact with students so you know when we think about safety in South Washington County schools and obviously we have a bond coming up that is looking at secured entryways we have multiple approaches for safety we have a raptor system that allows for sign in and check-in we have updated cameras for interior and exterior doors we have a visitor procedure in place when people check in obviously there's the relationships there's a Supervision in hallways it's more than just one thing we have safety Liaisons we have Deans at a couple of our schools looking back at our high school principals I'm sure I'm forgetting different we have you know Hall Walkers that are monitoring so it's a it's a multi-pronged approach and it's not just one thing when we think about safety in our school district and then um Mick a question for you is so um okay this is like a very bizarre lead-in but I know that if you have a trademark and you don't work to protect your trademark eventually people can it can become genericized right so if we don't is there any risk to us if we don't pursue damages for breach of contract like in the future are we opening ourselves up to not being able to pursue breach of Damages for a contract going forward for some other issue yeah I think if you sat on your rights for too long you can lose your rights and or be deemed to have waived them and it's not unclear under the law how long that would be I think you certainly could reasonably wait to see if the council is going to take any different action or not to try to work and more of a collaborative manner with the district and if they're not then you know if you want to pursue those rights I think you certainly could do that you know a month or two is not going to end your ability to pursue particularly if we're putting them on notice that we are not in agreement with the action that we are reserving our rights to to bring forward a lawsuit and to recover any damages that necessarily flow from that and including you'd want to seek your attorney's fees in this kind of a case where it's such a intentional action to walk away from a contract but I think again you could wait reasonably a month or two to do that and it takes time to draft pleadings and get all that stuff done in any event I wanted to just take a moment because I think it helps sometimes to provide some clarity I you know I don't want to be seen as you know I'm one side or another I'm I'm just going to read three really short hypotheticals from the league of Minnesota cities Insurance trust most recent document on this issue because they've really come back and you know kind of said hey everybody sort of settle down in terms of what the law really says and I think these three hypotheticals are short really kind of help us understand what we're looking at hypothetical number one officer Josh is an SRO a student is causing a disturbance in the lunchroom by screaming and throwing food trees on the floor because this Behavior does not involve a risk of bodily harm or death officer Josh may not use Force to control the student's Behavior or use Force to arrest the student for the commission of an offense even if it appears likely the offense will continue that makes sense that's consistent with what we've been talking about scenario number two officer Landa is an SRO a student Lynn becomes extremely upset after an argument with a peer and begins attacking windows and glass inside the school building with a metal bar it reasonably appears to officer Londa that the act of breaking glass and the presence of broken glass is placing Lynn and others in the building at risk of bodily harm officer Londa may use reasonable Force if necessary to restrain Lynn to prevent bodily harm also makes sense to us right and then the third one officer Christie is an SRO a large adolescent student Henry is punching a smaller student Bailey officer Christie May legally use reasonable Force if necessary to restrain Henry to stop him from harming Billy because officer Christie is authorized to use reasonable Force she has permitted to utilize prone or compressive restraint with Henry if reasonably necessary under the circumstances again we don't want to encourage that but if it's necessary that can be used and again reasonably necessary and so I I think that sometimes we we stretch what the changes actually are from again the reality of the world one so on that isn't this what we would have expected prior to this law anyway I mean we're talking children most likely yeah I believe based on the information I've received from the administration that this is whether it's our expectation or not this is how we have been operating with that understanding and um that the sros have done a great job of that too and that's the reason why we didn't have physical intervention last year it's clear that um me that the most important thing is to keep our number one number one number two is our teachers who take care of our kids we send them there to get an education and I think that one of the mix said it best that the sors I've had um encounters with the Sor because I had some kids who could up and um it was a very positive outcome and as a result they built excellent relationships with those officers in Woodbury so I just I I don't know Mick um we're going to have to take uh put a motion together on what our next steps should be and then we'll go into a discussion of the motion I think that's where we're at you for us what all of our all of our potential options are right because you know you had mentioned ending the SRO program having uh private security uh the council May reconsider which is not really within our purview Katie mentioned the Washington County Sheriff but it would just be helpful to have like a comprehensive rundown of what options are truly available to us so as I see them the list that I have running number one I think we can send the city a formal request to reconsider and you know our offer to have the officers here but not have them physically intervene unless it is clear to the officer we're not second guessing them unless it's clear to the officer that there is a threat of bodily harm or death and so that that I think is a very reasonable approach and I hope the council would reconsider that you have the right to consider the offer just to have officers walk through your buildings and I don't think that's a good idea I think that does more harm than good and has some legal implications the having officers um you know ending the program uh and hiring private security that's a an option for you again not one necessarily recommending because from everything I hear the sros work they're doing a good job they're building those relationships and we don't want to see people lose their job either because of a lack of funding for that we can send the council a letter the board could send the council letter that I could draft in addition to asking for requesting that they reconsider you know preserving our rights to go forward legally and saying that these are the things that we are you know we're serious you can't just walk away from a binding contract you don't like it doesn't mean that you just get to stay up I'm done with it we've got to find ways to work through through issues that arise you can you could just sit tight and take no action you can you could explore Services through Washington County I don't know whether they have the Personnel available to do that I'm not sure what the options are there or not so that's something we could certainly explore while we're doing other things and I think you know for some of these things it's kind of multiple at a time we're trying to help promote some understanding instead of fear with the council we're helping to also have an understanding that we're we're not okay with this kind of unilateral action that happens behind closed doors I think that um giving some time for cooler Minds to perhaps Prevail but also recognizing that again we're we're not going to sit on our rights indefinitely either and so it's your choice what emotional would be but it from my perspective it would probably be in recommendation and probably be a combination of those things the letter to the council to reconsider the letter to the council that we're preserving our rights and you know what our concerns are and basically outlining some of the information that I provided here today and then just so that you know if the council says pound sand to us I think we need to explore what the other options are meanwhile in case they do that and the council could do that and we could sue for specific performance we could do other things but meanwhile we have to think about what those other options are so I think we should at least you know task Administration was looking beginning to explore some of those hopefully we don't need to do that because again I know everybody values the sros that are actually in the buildings okay I think my recommendation would be to add suggested is to send a letter and I have been in contact with the Woodbury mayor and she is willing to meet with us so I think that that would be an up the first option and then we can move on from that after what to see what they say anybody else have any other suggestions I think we do need to add in as Mick suggested that we do have the right to go into litigation and I do also think that we should have Administration looking into other options because we don't know how long all this conversations could take and the longer we wait to do something if other schools are do it or we don't want to lose out on an option that and if they never come back then at least we know that we do have other options yeah and the concerns also is ones that we want to put in there Eric I saw you did you yeah um I agree with you chair van there I think a letter is a good first step and hopefully we can we can make some Headway with this partnership um I'm not going to say a whole lot else because I think I probably said too much already but um I just I just wanted to just clarify one thing I guess we talk about the difference between for example a child committing property damage versus creating a bodily safety risk to themselves or another student and Mick you laid out some hypothetical scenarios to kind of illustrate those differences and the decisions that are made by people that are dealing with those situations and those are those scenarios are interest I mean not hard to believe or understand I mean they're something that that could happen but the problem with reality is that sometimes it's up to people to determine what exactly started and how it started after the fact and oftentimes those individuals are biased based on the ultimate result of the situation so it could be that somebody steps in because they feel like this person's creating a safety risk to others things go very badly and then suddenly someone's being prosecuted and so because somebody said nah they were just committing property damage and then we're going to go with that this is this is the kind of I guess uncertain circumstances that I think the City of Woodbury is concerned about and look I'm not a special pleader for the City of Woodbury I'm not a special Peter for any municipality by any means but what I'm trying to do is I don't want them to be made into the enemy here because they're not the enemy here okay I hear your passion I hear you I know you're passionate and Eric I have to say the same thing this is not about them being the enemy at all or or as we have talked what I'm disappointed in a decision as big as taking an SRO out of our schools there was not any consultation with any member of our District administration zero not one the notice was posted on Friday we got a call on Tuesday we asked about an invitation to attend that was not that was not offered to us and so this is what we're left with and I agree with you completely if we can go back to the table and sit down and talk about it I absolutely think I think the sros are great I don't think that they're enjoying their work right now sitting off-site um you know waiting for someone to call so that has always been our goal and will remain our goal and at the heart of all of that is the safety of our kids and when you can show up on Friday and tell us that on Monday you're going to pull the sros out it really leaves some question in my mind around the safety of students regardless of law regardless of everything else how this occurred was unacceptable and it can't happen again working together is not being told something it's working together it's both people both parties at the table thank you Julie I appreciate that and I don't dispute that this process probably probably wasn't done correctly don't dispute that whatsoever I just want everybody to understand and if I haven't made the point clearly enough I'm going to make it again because I think it's prudent to do so this entire situation was created by people in Saint Paul period that's all I'm going to say thank you okay all right so let's say one more oh Pat okay I just would like um included in the letter our concerns like Julie was stating so that they're aware of why we're concerned about this and we're not trying to be you know uh aggressive or anything we just want them to know our point of view Melinda I just want to say regarding the the fear of Stories being you know one she said he said kind of thing about if the fight broke out or anything not only do we have cameras in our schools as well and we're looking at increasing that as well but I can't think of one job whether it's not risk of lawsuits you know I mean obviously there's harder more risk in things like police officers think of doctors and surgeons that are there saving our families our children every day they are at Major risk of lawsuits and they still do it for the sake of our children but you're going to say something so Mick do you have your marching orders there thank you yeah we're going to make a motion I think I have okay so can you kind of summarize it and then I'll call for the vote so the motion is for to direct the administration and Council for the board to send a letter to the city council outlying or outlining the board's concerns um and under helping the council understand the board's full point of view and then also that we remain willing to meet we are interested in looking at other options uh we'll give some reasonable period of time to do that but at the same time we are preserving our rights to um our legal for our legal rights to move forward in the event that we can't find an applicable solution and I think again really emphasizing I think it's true the city's not the bad folks here they're they have their concerns we understand their concerns we have our concerns but we we can't just walk away from contracts okay thank you everybody understand the motion now okay I'm gonna call further motion all those in favor can I can I get a a motion to accept the most seconds okay any discussion or comments I do have a question um is there a time frame that would be considered on the letter or did I miss that for them to respond or for them to say let's meet I think we'd certainly invite them to meet as quickly as possible or at least a you know a subset I understand we have open meeting law issues we have to be mindful of and the council as a whole might have to meet again to discuss the matter as well but I think we'll give them give a reasonable period of time uh certainly you know a month but I don't know that I would go more than two months without commencing legal action if if we couldn't get some resolution um I think that that would be my outside timeline for sure and you can give me other timelines if you want but that'd be the latest I'd wait to try to give time to resolve the matter okay okay everybody agree that's reasonable is that the is that the amount of time that best preserves our yeah I'd be concerned if you went longer than two months that you 've add on your rights too long I I think that it's an important issue and also you know lawsuits take time as I mentioned it takes time to draft them to commence them to go through them and so all that while we may be without necessaril so the other thing is we're going to look at those options to behind the scenes to see what other options might exist and that's a reasonable amount of time for the council to I think certainly within two months that's plenty of time perhaps too long not to go back and gave us three days that we that these people were being pulled out I wouldn't want to go more than 30 days to give them to respond if they were able to host it on on the notify us on the fifth vote on the sixth that they were taking him out and they were out by Monday Monday yeah certainly I think 30 days is reasonable they need two months if they can do that in that amount of time certainly I think 30 days is reasonable if you want to establish that timeline is that agreeable with the board 30 days agreeable can I suggest something is there something that can be done in the interim maybe as a temporary measure the city has offered to have walkthroughs maybe not a bad idea I think I think that will be up to do I'm gonna leave that up to Julie and the and her cabinet and because they know what their needs are and they can work with the princess that would be a board motion that I believe we would have to okay let's take whatever we want if we don't I I'm I am against so I would not want that happening um I have serious legal concerns about it as well yeah I would not want that to be happening so if we could finish this motion and then okay if we can let's finish okay are those in favor of devotion that's on hi okay all opposed okay the motion carried now what is the other motion that you want so you make it I would like to make the motion that we do not have um but we don't let anyone you just walk through our hallways and I don't believe that police officers should be any different to that if they are not going to be sros in our schools then they should not be in the school unless we call them for a reason that they need to be in the school are you fine with them being at special events though which are open to special events they have been to that are outside of the sros for I mean since I went to school at Park and either I think what we were talking about is for the what I believed was was due with the Julie in the cabinet was to look at other options not to take them but to lay out on the table meantime here's some options that we could go right forward with but we don't want no I am not four so I would like to make the motion that that is not should we make the motion in an affirmative way instead of I'm not in favor would you like me to make the motion that says I am in favor of walkthroughs does that make it more clear I guess I already made the most okay so I just so what am I saying to that no or yes I don't know we need a second how are you second it no I don't think that's what I said so I've already made so one way you could word the motion is to say I I moved to reject the city's offer to have walkthroughs by officers through the building and that way if you're voting yes you know you're voting to reject that offered okay okay can I just share that I don't want to confuse people that was not the city council's offer the city council's offer that was brought back to us did not include that that was when we were in conversation about other potential things and so if you're talking about the interim then you know you can take mixed legal advice but that was not part of what was negotiated and that was what was shared with us it was an option that was discussed but did not come from the city council did the city council have a have an offer that they did make to us it was around large events that was all games basketball games but it was just that okay okay can I I just because perfect we get a second okay all those in favor no no discussion okay now Eric I guess my question is is okay so we vote on this this completely takes this off the table in any form but I mean how do we know what form I I mean so so are you saying I mean if we vote if this is if this gets voted as a yes meaning we reject whatever the proposition for working through okay does that mean that a police officer must be called to respond to the school yeah yeah but that's that's that's insane what if they see something as they're driving by the school I mean what what if there's some other circumstance whereby they feel the need to respond for whatever reason I mean we you just you just can't you can't make this motion kind of willy-nilly and just hope it works out it would not reject an officer from seeing a kid stealing a bike from going and grabbing and saying you can't steal the bike it's just like if if something's happening at my house I don't have to call the police if they drive by and see it they would stop we're not saying that what we're saying is we don't want them showing up at 10 o'clock I'm walking the hallways at one o'clock I'm walking the hallways that's what we're rejecting a police officer is bound by their Duty that if they see something something happening they would have to do something this is not what we're saying we're saying we do not want a police officer to just walk through the doors and and walk through the hallways so we don't let parents do it we don't let I can't as a school board member I can't walk into the school and just walk the hallways I have to be checked in I have to go through the steps that's all we're saying but I don't know how this would say a police officer can't stop if well because it's happening in the hallway if a fight's happening outside and they see it they're going to be able to stop that fight from happening I understand that but I just that's why that's why I wanted to clarify because when I first asked you know and you I said do they need to be called there and you were shaking your head yes and I said well that that's if a fight's happening inside they're not going to see it so yes we would have to call a police officer to have them come in to do it or perh they could be notified in another way I don't know and what other way would they be notified kid comes running out squad cars driving by the parking lot I don't know well I I'm guessing that a principal would let them into the school and say hey there's something going on perhaps one way around this is to state that we could phrase it to state that officers are not authorized to conduct regular walk-throughs yeah and um again understanding that an officer sees something hears something is informed of something receives a call they're going to come in and respond to an emergency situation or a crime that's either happening or reported to be about to happen but they're not authorized to conduct regular walkthroughs yeah for the regular walkthroughs like what do you what are you envisioning as the as the positive benefit of it I don't know what I'm envisioning but I I think you know I'm not just talking about you know random um beat officer from you know North Side Woodbury beat you know walking through East Ridge or whatever but certainly they have the the sros that are now in this juvenile investigations position that they've kind of put them in temporarily so I don't understand the issue with if the city's okay with it and the police department's okay with it having them doing some walkthroughs they're already known to the kids why not put them back in there if the city and the police department's okay with it if they're not under contract by this by the school and they're being paid solely by the police department it seems to me that does alleviate to some extent uh the liability placed on them by the legislation maybe not all the way I don't know but it does alleviate some of it and these people are already known to the kids and so I guess the question the questions I would have would be around how does this how does that Foster the relationship building that's part of the SRO program and it doesn't it's a stop Gap measure until we can get this mess figured out and then if they're if they're um if they're not in the building constantly you know like if something doesn't if they're okay it's the 10 8 10 a.m they're doing the walk through and something happens at noon and they're not there is that just kind of a false sense of security because there's not an SRO who's in the building the whole time yeah that would be I mean the sros aren't necessarily in the building all day long every day anyway I mean they're doing other things investigating various things or shouldn't the sros be in the building all day every day um it is my understanding that they are not always in the building sometimes they're off at training okay um I mean they investigate crimes that occur in the school so they have question since there was no proposal by the city to do walk-throughs would the board consider just giving our superintendent the authority to sit down with the city and whatever is worked out in the interim trust that that will be well done because I certainly do I don't want to take anything off the table totally there's no proposal here to reject I I would rather see Julie authorized to to install whatever means in the interim she sees fit Louise I think I think it's a mistake to to make a motion and vote on something Banning some sort of activity or Banning some sort of program a temporary program or whatever you want to call it temporary measure I think that's a mistake um you know if we if we want to authorize her to do something or whatever fine taking something off the table I'm with Louise I don't think that's a good idea okay let's just call for the vote and then see where it leads us all those in favor say aye baby can you can you word it better yeah not authorized Woodbury Police Officers to conduct regular walkthroughs yeah nothing else just regular one as opposed to rejecting a proposal it now says that we're not gonna authorize okay so so as opposed to saying it's rejecting something it is just saying that's something we're specifically not going to authorize so a yes vote says we're not authorizing it yes a no vote says I don't like it one one thing I want us to think about in the interim is um the difference between if it's a regular patrol officer off the street or if it's our existing if it's Rudy or Ashley Who currently serve our students and is there a difference there because while it's the start of the school year we know that from previous years and Rudy happens to be new um at Woodbury High School but perhaps there is a way to think about that in terms of in the interim we talked about a month and then after that month we would have to make different decisions I guess for me it's uh working with our high school leaders our sros the city and having the conversation about what could that look like but I would say we definitely would have to be guaranteed that their um the existing sros and they're not just a street Patrol that to me would serve no purpose at all at least there is some connection that they have to the kids at school Mick I don't know your legal guidance as it relates to someone who has already developed relationships in the school if it's scheduled what your legal thoughts are there I I do still have the same concerns that I mentioned earlier and one of them too is again are we creating this subterfuge where it's we're saying wink wink nod nod you're not under contract come on in but we expect you to do the same thing does that really help that SRO and uh in the event of a lawsuit uh I don't know um I'd rather rely on the reasonable Force exceptions that are clear in the law but that's probably a bigger concern for the city Side to think about I think that we'd have to be have something in writing in terms of with the city why it is and when it is that the officers can those sros only can be our inner schools because again we do not want to open up our Forum uh to say that you know anybody including an officer can just come in and walk through whatever they want like you aptly said even board members can't just come in and walk through the schools we we have a lot of protections for a lot of reasons and we want to make sure that those kids feel comfortable and are incentive to come to school and not disincented so I think we can work through it but I I want to make sure we were clear in our understanding and expectation with the city of how we might work through that Mick one question for you without this motion have we authorized anyone to walk through our schools if there is no motion we haven't if the motion fails we have we still haven't authorized them just and again you could the alternative is to say you know you could just say we're going to um task your superintendent who is your manager your day-to-day you know CEO with making these types of decisions if you wanted to Mick you just you said something interesting you said that you're uncomfortable with the idea of of having the the former sros you know just kind of doing the same thing or trying to do the same thing uh as a as a temporary measure without being agents of the school being paid by solely the police department you said that still doesn't really help out their situation or I'm not really sure how you phrased it you said it doesn't really I guess cover their liability and that you're illustrating my point you're illustrating my point this my point that I've been trying to make this entire evening as far as the City of Woodbury is concerned is that the situation has changed with this law the situation for what they are what they can do keeping themselves safe from not just civil liability but criminal liability has changed and you Illustrated it by what you just said right there because if you're uncomfortable putting them in there because they can still be considered agents of the school even if they're not receiving a paycheck from the school then there's a problem there's a problem and I I just people need to understand that there is a massive problem and I know some cities are interpreting it differently but law interpretation you know that continues on until somebody's in jail and then things spiral out of control all right let's get back to the business at hand here um so we have a motion and that is we do not authorize who and so anyone walkthroughs by this by the wood but yes so any more discussion on that um I just lost my train of thought here um that wasn't a stipulation anyway with the City of Woodbury that wasn't even then no no there's an item that was discussed yes it was disgusting the dividing meeting as an option right and so my point is this past this motion we're only looking at it for 30 days or less hopefully the City of Woodbury has already offered to have a meeting the sooner the better so why don't we just pass this and keep things clean neat and until we can figure it out and Sharon when you said the City of Woodbury offered to have a meeting through the mayor through the mayor she had she has contacted me and my my um my uh response was contact our superintendent so that was no later than this morning I think it was so we'll if if they're willing to to move forward with our superintendent and our our legal counsel I think that would be our best option so let's I'm done talking call for the vote all in favor aye nay no okay or no or whatever okay one day and no no no Luis two okay one two three four five motion carried all right all right all right all right thank you all that this one y'all really talk tonight I'm just really proud of you here okay so now we're at 6.0 and we're adjourned thank you