Reader Response: St. Peter schools should pause officer cut

May 17—The Free Press

A majority of area respondents say St. Peter Public Schools should hold off on moving forward with plans to cut a school resource officer position, according to a Free Press online question.

Out of 182 total respondents, 139 voters — more than 76% — say St. Peter schools shouldn't proceed with cutting a school resource officer position within the district. Another 43 voters supported the district's initial plans.

Earlier this month, district leaders in St. Peter postponed plans to eliminate one of two school resource officer positions and are moving ahead with hiring an additional social worker.

The district will separately investigate a complaint made against the officer, whose position is now in limbo.

Administrators had decided to reallocate funds from the second resource officer position to instead hire an additional social worker, but an online petition and emails protesting the officer's removal is making district officials rethink that plan. The district will now invite more public input.

The pandemic brought students' mental health and social service needs to the forefront. District leaders decided the district should focus resources on enhancing those supports.

The district now will use federal coronavirus relief dollars to temporarily fund the additional social worker, who will support early childhood and elementary students and their families.

One of the school resource officers posted on social media he wasn't going to return to the school district this fall and encouraged people to reach out to the schools about the SRO program. Dueling petitions launched to either keep or remove the officer. And a formal complaint was launched against the officer, which the district is investigating.

The Free Press online question, sent out Friday, asked, "Should St. Peter Public Schools move forward with plans to cut one of its school resource officer positions?"

There were two options to answer, yes or no.

Commenters were split over whether the district should move forward with its plans.

"If the motives for removal are based in the current bandwagon movement to disparage law enforcement, then the school board needs a reality check," Douglas Schaller wrote. "There are bad people out there and it isn't the cop sitting in the school, it's the criminal seeking to attack the school. The foundational reasons for having the school resource officer haven't changed regardless of media hype or misguided perceptions of our police forces."

"As usual, a qualified 'yes' (life ain't that simple)," Paul Brandon wrote. "The number of violent criminal acts in school buildings is vanishingly small, and police have not always been effective in dealing with them. There are a lot of classrooms and one police officer. Most of the situations that the liaison officer deals with are not ones for which law enforcement training is appropriate. If as I believe the same funds will be used to hire additional personnel with more appropriate training, then the move is justified. It's a question of making services more effective; not reducing them."