The East Penn School Board met May 23 to finalize the proposed 2016-2017 school year budget. At the last meeting, the board thought the proposed budget was too high and there were many elements of the budget with mixed views.

The most prominent element was the instatement of a school resource officer. A straw poll conducted at the May 9 meeting showed four board members – Charles H. Ballard, Chris Donatelli, Carol Allen and Ziad Munson – as strongly opposed to the SRO, while only one board member, Francee Fuller, was in favor of the SRO.

On May 23, a handful of concerned citizens stood in front of the board to address their own concerns, including four members of Emmaus Borough Council. With one exception, all speakers addressing concerns over the SRO were in favor of placing such an officer in the district.

During the discussion, Fuller read email responses from four local school district superintendents with similar structure to East Penn who already have an SRO instated. Fuller reached out to Bethlehem, Parkland, Salisbury and Southern Lehigh to gain perspective on what school life is like with an SRO involved. Fuller’s intent was to add facts to the conversation, which was more speculative at the first May meeting.

All four superintendents spoke highly of their SRO, stating they have nothing but positive feedback. Bethlehem officials mentioned they measured the success of their SRO not by increased arrests during the school day, but by a decrease in school related arrests.

Parkland officials brought up a real-life example from earlier this year. Police were called into the school after it was evacuated. The SRO led the investigation and was able to cut down the search time of the school due to his prior knowledge of the building.

Ballard asked Superintendent Dr. J. Michael Schilder to elucidate what types of issues require an SRO in the first place. Schilder responded problems are not driving this request, but rather it stems from a desire to increase safety within the high school.

The driving force, Schilder said, is to provide a liaison and law enforcement counselor for the students. Schilder’s hope is the SRO will “change the climate for the better” within the high school.

Board member Paul Champagne added the SRO will succeed if the right person is placed into the position. Rebecca Heid, another board member, asked if the board will get to look at both the applicants and the contracts of the possible SRO. Schilder responded yes.

Donatelli, Munson and Allen were still concerned about the SRO. Donatelli felt he has not been on the board long enough to make a well-informed decision on the SRO. He mentioned, also, that incidents were down at the school. Munson said he was not in support of the motion – he remained skeptical that an SRO could really change the climate of the school community.

Regardless, Munson did commend Schilder on his leadership on the SRO project and believes that, if the motion carried, Schilder would do well implementing the program. Allen agreed there should be eyes looking out for the students, but she did not think an SRO was the answer.

During the meeting, high school student government representative Matt FitzMaurice was present. School Board President Alan Earnshaw asked FitzMaurice what he thought of the proposed SRO, knowing the students would be the people most affected by this decision. FitzMaurice said he thought an SRO a good idea. He said there are illegal activities happening in school and he doesn’t feel it is the teachers’ job to stop these things.

FitzMaurice also mentioned a police officer would get noticed.

“Maybe having an SRO will get kids to have a relationship [with the police] instead of fearing the law.”

Earnshaw said he’s been on both sides of the SRO debate since it was first brought up in 2007. He has heard strong cases for both and he believes Schilder, who is in the school buildings every day and knows the “pulse of the school,” knows what he’s talking about when it comes to having an SRO.

School Board Vice President Ken Bacher said this decision wasn’t predominantly about budget anymore; the SRO proposed budget is $100,000 for the 2016-2017 school year was a concern of the board during the first meeting. The SRO would be implemented because of additional safety.

The motion carried with two votes against from Donatelli and Munson and one abstention from Allen with no explanation.

The majority of the board’s concerns with the rest of the 2016-2017 budget revolved around the fund balance and budgetary reserve. Munson asked for clarification on these two items and Schilder said the fund balance contains the budgetary reserve because everything is under the fund balance. In the proposed budget, the fund balance is projected at 3.88 percent. Ballard mentioned the budgetary reserve from last year decreased by more than a third, which, according to him, is approaching irresponsible levels. He would like to see the budgetary reserve be at least at 4 percent.

Earnshaw reminded the board an approval of a proposed final budget means the number accepted is the highest amount the school district can spend. The proposed final budget is $142,266,616.

The motion for the proposed final 2016-17 school year budget was also passed during the meeting with two against votes from Allen and Donatelli.