Talks move forward on South San Francisco school officers

While the city has pushed for the program to restart immediately after both parties approve the MOU and to have the program automatically renew each year, a majority of SSFUSD trustees agreed that the district should be awarded a window of time to prepare for officers to be reintroduced to campuses and to hold an annual vote on upholding the agreement.

“At some point, the pingponging is going to keep going indefinitely or it’s got to stop,” said John Baker, SSFUSD Board of Trustees president, during Thursday’s meeting. “Yes this took a long time and yes it [required] effort from our staff but it’s important and I think it’s important we at least look at it every year.”

Trustee Patricia Murray was a staunch supporter of the city’s proposal, sharing her own concerns that an annual review would be as time-consuming as the current process and shedding doubt much preparation would be necessary before reinstating the program and allowing officers to return to campus.

And after noting the current draft MOU closely resembles what was approved by the board in October, Murray argued the board has been micromanaging staff and said more trust in staff members tasked with drafting the document “would have gone a long way” in getting the program up and running sooner.

“I don’t know what that process would look like but this has been horrible. This has been horrible on our staff. It’s taken time away from things that they could and should be doing,” Murray said.

But now in the second semester of the school year, students, other public speakers and some board members argued that the past few months have proven an officer’s presence on campus is not necessary. Baker said the “sky hasn’t fallen” without SLOs while board Vice President Mina Richardson said she’s “not sure that things are just falling apart in the district.”

Richardson, who said she wanted to see the presence of officers reduced by 90%, suggested the district consider bringing SLOs back to campus at the start of the next school year while Baker said a time frame of two weeks would be the tightest he could support.

Trustees Daina Lujan and Dr. Chialin Hsieh said they could support starting the program immediately or with a short window but Lujan noted concerns that if the MOU was soon approved as drafted, staff would be required to prepare a review of the MOU before the end of the school year which would be too short of a time frame.

Heeding Lujan’s concerns, the board agreed that the review could be put off until next school year if the MOU were to be approved in the next coming months.

The board ultimately agreed on a 30-day window for starting the program after Superintendent Dr. Shawnterra Moore said that the district would need time to communicate the details of the MOU with school administrators, though she noted even two weeks may not be necessary.

“I don’t know if there’s a whole lot to prepare but I do think communication is going to be really important,” Moore said. “I’d rather be very intentional.”

The board also agreed to add language into the document that states the MOU should be reviewed and voted on annually with Baker calling the provision a “kill pill” for him.

Responding to concerns raised by Baker around data collection that’s necessary for monitoring the program, Moore said City Manager Mike Futrell indicated to her that the city would comply with timely requests for data collected and stored by the police department. Language for that issue will also be added to the MOU, she said.

As for what data would be made available, Baker pushed for more to be shared with the district including information related to any student who steps on their campuses regardless of where they’re enrolled. But Lujan cautioned the request, noting the district would likely be given what is deemed relevant to the board’s jurisdiction.

“My particular focus would be what’s happening with our students,” Lujan said. “I want to be mindful of if there’s some sort of outcome that leads to criminal activity that’s not our jurisdiction. They’re not our student.”

Having received unanimous board approval, the MOU will now go back to the City Council for consideration and could return to SSFUSD trustees if additional changes are made.

“I do know without an MOU we don’t really have a say about how the interactions go with our students on campus,” Baker said. “It’s not perfect. It’s not going to please everybody. It’s not going to please a lot of people but it’s better than what we had before.”

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106