BEDFORD – Lawrence County Sheriff Greg Day released the following statement to clarify the school resource officer position:
It is not my standard policy to comment on or acknowledge news articles or social media posts/drama. I find there is little benefit in engaging in such endeavors. Instead, I choose to let my integrity, morals, and community-minded decision-making speak for itself. However, regarding the recent publicity garnered from the school resource program and my seeking approval to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with North Lawrence Community Schools (NLCS) on filling a school resource officer spot at BNL, it has become apparent that there is a plethora of misinformation, twisted facts, and propaganda floating around on all sides. The issue of our kids’ safety is too big an issue to divide the community. Therefore, I want to take just a few moments of your time to explain this situation as rationally and as straightforwardly as possible.
First, let me begin by explaining what the MOU with NLCS was that I requested to be approved at the July 29th Lawrence County Commissioners’ Meeting. In years past, since before I was elected Sheriff, the Bedford Police Department had an officer assigned to BNL High School as the school resource officer. He retired at the end of this past year, leaving a need for an SRO there. Bedford Police had previously notified NLCS that it would not be supplying an SRO at BNL moving forward, which makes sense because the high school is geographically located in the county’s primary jurisdiction, not the city limits. Since we all place a high priority on the safety of our kids, I decided that no matter how difficult it was on our manpower, we would rearrange duties, consolidate a few roles, and free up an officer to perform the duties of the SRO at BNL. The safety of the youth was that important to me, even if it created burdens on the department in other ways.
I worked with the administration at NLCS and agreed to provide a deputy as the school resource officer at BNL. It should be noted that this is not a new hire, but instead moving a deputy from his regular duties out to the school. I have also worked with our county council in many ways to save multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars toward the county general fund. Moving a deputy to the SRO position was yet another way to save the county money. The agreement between me and NLCS (approved by their school board) was that they would reimburse $75,000 to the county. This would pay for the salary and benefits of the deputy while he performs his SRO duties. The county would pay the remainder of the salary and benefits, for $12-$15,000. This makes perfect sense. NLCS pays the full cost of the SRO duties. The county pays for the rest of the year – approximately three months – spring break, summer break, fall break, Christmas break, holidays, and snow days. During those times, this deputy will perform the duties as a regular patrol officer, completing work for us, not the school.Â
The MOU was simply an agreement for the county to collect that $75,000 reimbursement. NLCS agreed to pay the entirety of this SRO position. The MOU saved the county general fund $75,000 because that deputy was already on the payroll and being paid. This was simply the NLCS agreeing to pay the full cost of the new SRO position my deputy is filling. Everything else about the SRO payment structure remained the same as it had for years without complaint. Simple- or so I thought.
The MOU did include the second SRO, which is the original SRO that the county was already providing to the NLCS elementary schools. There were no changes to that structure at all; it was only included in the same MOU as the new BNL position to consolidate everything into one document. So, to reiterate, the MOU I requested be approved kept the original SRO payment plan the same as it had been for years (NLCS paying half the salary and benefits), plus added the full payment of the new BNL SRO assignment of an already employed deputy.
Now, to be clear, I will touch base on the original SRO positions. First, the Sheriff’s Office had an SRO with NLCS. He is assigned the three elementary schools outside of the city limits of Mitchell and Bedford. These are the rural schools that take time to respond to as an officer. This SRO rotates between the three schools. During breaks and non-school times, this SRO is also a deputy taking care of regular road patrol duties. NLCS pays half the salary and benefits, and the county pays the other half. That is the agreement that has been in place for years.
Secondly, after I took office in 2023, the Springville Community Academy, a publicly funded charter school, reached out about an SRO position. We discussed the limited number of ways a school can have an SRO. It was agreed upon that they would like to hire their employee, a retired police officer, to be their SRO. I, as the Sheriff, would then appoint them a special deputy, providing him with police powers, equipment, and all required training. He is an employee of the school, not the county. SCA pays the full amount (which is not much more than what NLCS pays for their half of the elementary SRO), maintains control over the employee, and is his employer. This SRO only works during the SCA school year and does not work for the county in any capacity during breaks. This arrangement has worked out great.
Third, in 2023, the Mitchell school resource officer, who was an employee of the Mitchell Police Department, left his position. This left Mitchell Schools without an SRO. At the time, the Mitchell Police were very understaffed and not in a position to provide an SRO. I was in communication with the superintendent at the time and a school board member.
Due to a number of reasons, financial, employee control, etc., it was expressed to me that the school would like to follow the same model as Springville had with me. The school system would hire a former police officer as an employee, and I would make them a special deputy. Again, I provided equipment, police powers, and training. In addition, the Mitchell Police Department provided a vehicle to the school.
This SRO only works during the school year and does not work for the county (or city) in any capacity during breaks. The Mitchell School Board approved this. Again, the amount Mitchell Schools paid for this SRO is a bit more than NLCS was paying for their elementary SRO; however, he does no work for the county and only answers to the school as his employer.
I feel that this arrangement between the Sheriff’s Office (county) and Mitchell Schools is more than fair because what we were providing was inside the city limits of Mitchell, where the primary jurisdiction belongs to the police department. If you were to check around the state at all the other SROs, it would be a rare thing to find one inside a city that is not affiliated with the local city police department. But, again, I cared enough about the safety of the kids in that school system and stepped up to provide the help needed.
So, to summarize the previous SRO situation, all three schools were within about $10,000 of their respective SRO costs. The county did pay half the NLCS salary, but that SRO also worked as a road deputy and performed duties part of the year for the Sheriff’s Office. The other two SROs did not – they only worked for the school and only during the school year. In addition to the equipment, training, and vehicles provided to Mitchell and SCA, the county incurs liability as it relates to the police work – in other words, we take on the cost and responsibilities associated with liability protections of another entity’s employee. As a side note, each of the three school districts receives school safety grants to fund their SRO programs to the extent that they do.
I understand that folks can look at these facts in whatever light they want, and can split hairs to try to find discrepancies in the parody or fairness. Overall, however, I firmly believe that the county, and in particular the Lawrence County Sheriff’s Office, has demonstrated in every instance our commitment to school safety. Everything was set up according to what worked best in each individual situation. No money was denied to anyone. The arrangement has worked well for all parties. I do not fault anyone who may feel otherwise, nor do I harbor any ill will toward those who may not see it how I do. To those, I will simply say we can agree to disagree.
Now, back to the new MOU that was approved on July 29th. All of these things with the elementary NLCS SRO, the Mitchell SRO, and the SCA SRO stayed the same with the new MOU. No changes were made to what was working and what each respective school had requested.
The only change included in the new MOU was that NLCS would pay $75,000 for me to assign a deputy to BNL.
Hopefully, although long, this statement and clarification have explained the situation in detail, eliminating any misconceptions or misinformation. We at the Sheriff’s Office will continue to prioritize school safety and work with each school system. My relationship with NLCS, Mitchell, and SCA has been strong. I have also been in multiple talks with Lawrence County Independent Schools, the last rural school without an SRO, to understand their unique situation. Until something is put in place there, I have assigned one of my day shift road deputies to be a school liaison to LCIS. He will make multiple visits each week there, becoming the “go-to” contact for their staff and students. My commitment to our schools, this community, our great citizens, and fiscal responsibility will never waver. I want to thank all the school administrators that we have worked with, the commissioners for approving this MOU, and everyone who supports the youth of Lawrence County. Together, we will accomplish great things.
Sheriff Greg Day
