Sonoma Valley school board considers campus safety plans without student resource officers

Members of the Sonoma Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees intend to look at many options to address school safety concerns, but voiced opposition to bringing back a school resource officer (SRO), unless the position is significantly changed.

“We don’t have to reinvent the wheel,” said Anne Ching, president of the board, at its meeting on Thursday, April 20. “Let’s have staff bring back to us what the different options are. But we have a short-term problem that we want to address, and we want to develop a really thoughtful long-term plan.”

Trustee Catarina Landry, who requested the agenda item, advocated the continued implementation of a short-term plan devised by Sonoma Police Chief Brandon Cutting and Acting Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth Kaufmann, which calls for a police officer to continue to patrol each of the district’s campuses through the end of the school year.

“This is intended for prevention and deterrence,” Kaufman said. “It’s a placebo effect for staff who feel that there will be an opportunity to have some sort of mitigation if something comes up. But I am 100% clear that there will be no citations, no discipline and no involvement of any sort in behavioral interventions involving students. That is the job of our school administrators. It is what their credentials authorize them to do.”

After considerable input from board members, school staff and community members at the meeting, Ching urged that the board take additional steps.

The next step is to have discussions with Sonoma city officials and David M. Guhin, the new city manager, about their commitment to long-term funding for school safety issues. In 2021, the city withdrew its funding for the SRO, a $240,000 cost it shared with the school district and Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office.

“The second thing is to continue to have listening circles to gather information about what the safety problem is that we’re trying to address in the short- and long-term,” Ching said. “We also need to convene a task force that is going to address the overall, comprehensive picture. And I think that there will have to be some conversation about the position that we’re trying to fill, but I don’t think that can happen until we know what students want and how they define safety.”

Ching said that an SRO might not be part of the solution.

“Maybe it’s a safety coach or a safety liaison, or somebody who’s working in parallel that may have law enforcement training,” Ching said.

A multilayered approach is needed, said Jennifer Saldana, the mother of two Sonoma Valley High School students and a RISK Sonoma board member, a nonprofit that offers resources for parents.

“I’m not saying that an SRO is the solution,” she said. “We have to make sure we have resources available to whoever is in the (new) position. They need to have resources to be successful — including the Sonoma Valley Mentoring Alliance, Sonoma Valley Education Foundation, RISK Sonoma and any community members who want to be a part of the process.

“We also have to remember that law enforcement on campus isn’t just there for that one incident, or to write citations. What about kids who come to school and are being abused at home, and who now have an opportunity to build a relationship with someone on campus?”

Public comment also included concerns about SROs profiling and disproportionately disciplining students of color and those with disabilities.

Mindy Luby, a parent and an advocate for students with disabilities, said that law enforcement personnel are not well-equipped to differentiate between conduct that requires discipline and the behavior of children with autism, Down syndrome and many other conditions.

“So, as a result, we see that data clearly demonstrates that students with disabilities are disproportionately impacted — and when they are impacted, they’re truly traumatized by their interactions with untrained police officers,” she said.

Trustee Celeste Winders pointed out that the number of students referred to the Sonoma Valley Youth and Family Services diversion program declined from 74 in 2019, the last full year the district had an SRO, to 20 in 2022. Most of the referrals in 2022 were made by school administrators.

“I believe that our school administrators are very good at their jobs and that they understand Youth and Family Services,” she said. “And I believe that if there is a student who is in need of the program and should be referred to it, in alignment with our memorandum of understanding, that our administrative staff would absolutely take those steps. This tells me we have a decrease in need for referrals to that program, which means our positive behavior intervention strategies and multitiered levels of support are doing their jobs.

“Do we need to have a conversation about a school resource officer, or about the way in which we can support our children?”

Landry said that it will be important to create a task force to develop a plan to improve school safety.

“I would like the board also to consider continuing the work that chief Cutting and Dr. Kaufman have done and provided,” she said. “I think that the acknowledgment of the officer that has been on campus now is important. We need to acknowledge that there are students who are very appreciative of (this officer), but that may not be all students.”

Trustee Troy Knox said that philosophically, he’s opposed to having police officers in schools.

“But something needs to change; I understand that,” he said. “If that includes having someone from law enforcement as part of it, let’s talk about it. But when I think of a positive school climate, I don’t see it with a law enforcement officer looking to ensure safety. I think we need to decide what we want to prevent, and come up with solutions we can all agree to.”

Trustee John Kelly said that it would be difficult to reinstate an SRO officer, anyway, because the necessary funding is not currently available.

“If the city had adopted a contract in December 2020, we would have continued to have an SRO,” he said. “We’re not in that position anymore. Once a program ends, restarting it is a very different proposition.”

The school resource officer program began in 2004 as a partnership between Sonoma Valley Unified School District and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office. The city of Sonoma, which contracts with the sheriff’s office to offer Sonoma Police Department services, joined the collaboration in 2013.

As an employee of the sheriff’s office, the SRO had an office at Sonoma Valley High School and worked full-time on various campuses within the school district. In 2020, the city eliminated three police positions. Although its share of the SRO funding was budgeted, the city put the program on hold at the beginning of the fiscal year due to uncertainties during the COVID-19 pandemic, organizational budget impacts and the shift to virtual learning.

The school district had approved a contract to continue the SRO program into 2022, but it was discontinued after the Sonoma City Council voted to discontinue funding on Dec. 14, 2020. The school district asked the city to transition the $40,000 it had designated for the SRO for student mental health services, but the request was denied.

The city included school services in its contract with the sheriff’s department for 2022-23, using one-time funding.

“However, the city faces the same funding challenges as it did in 2020,” said Trustee John Kelly. “The city of Sonoma’s budget continues to be under pressure and relies on one-time funds for recurring expenses. The question remains: Where is the stable funding mechanism that would allow the city to pursue an SRO contract, and why hasn’t the city sought an agreement about that funding with SVUSD?

“If a future city council decides to reduce funding again, SVUSD would have to cover the shortfall, potentially facing long-term expenses to maintain the program.”

Reach the reporter, Dan Johnson, at daniel.johnson@sonomanews.com.