Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-28 e-packet@6:01Wednesday, July 28, 2021 6:01 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING July 28, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. Councilmembers Coleman, Flores and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego and essential City staff may participate via Teleconference. Pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953, all votes shall be by roll call due to council members participating by teleconference. This meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Governor ’s Executive Orders N-29-20, N-63-20 and N-08-21 allowing for deviation of Teleconference Rules required by the Brown Act & pursuant to the order of San Mateo County Department of Public Health regarding gatherings during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, and recommendations to follow social distancing procedures, the City of South San Francisco will hold the meeting through a hybrid of in -person attendance with the City Council, designated staff, and limited members of the public at the City Council Chambers and through the virtual platform, Zoom . In-person attendance by members of the public will be subject to maximum capacity and current health and safety protocols. American Disability Act: The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at [email protected]. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the meeting. Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability -related modification or accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the City Clerk by email at [email protected], 24-hours before the meeting. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of South San Francisco to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/3/2021 July 28, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED Join Zoom meeting https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88369060485 (Enter your email and name) Join by One Tap Mobile : US: +16699006833,,88369060485# or +13462487799,,88369060485# Join by Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 883 6906 0485 How to observe the Meeting (no public comment): 1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27 2) https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council Meeting: Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link: https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff. How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting: 1) By Phone: (669) 900-6833. Webinar ID is https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88369060485. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to unmute when called. By One tap mobile: US: +16699006833,,88369060485# or +13462487799,,88369060485# 2) Online at: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88369060485 a. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. b. When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. c. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. IN-PERSON: Please complete a Digital Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber ’s. Be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/3/2021 July 28, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda Call to Order. Roll Call. Agenda Review. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Consideration of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School District concerning the use and duties of School Liaison Officers (SLOs). (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney, and Jeff Azzopardi, Police Chief) 1. Adjournment. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/3/2021 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-613 Agenda Date:7/28/2021 Version:1 Item #:1. Consideration of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)between the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School District concerning the use and duties of School Liaison Officers (SLOs). (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney, and Jeff Azzopardi, Police Chief) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council by motion approve and authorize the City Manager to execute this MOU between the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School District concerning the use and duties of School Liaison Officers (SLOs). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD)has partnered with the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD)since 1983.When School Liaison Officers (SLOs)are integrated into a school system,the benefits go beyond reduced violence in schools.The officers build relationships with students while serving as a resource to students, teachers,and administrators to help solve problems.The SLO program provides designated officers,so school staff and students become familiar with the officers as individuals who are aware of the unique dynamics involved in a school setting. These officers apply for the position and are selected after an interview/testing process. SSFPD has two full-time School Liaison Officers,who are part of the Department's Community Relations Unit.SLOs track their events,hours spent,and students interacted with on an annual basis.On average,SLOs interact with more than 2,000 students and spend more than 200 hours at schools in one school year. SLOs often act as mediators or counselors among school staff,students,and parents.SSFPD is not charged with,nor do officers,provide mental health services for the school district.However,the SLOs are trained and certified in Crisis Intervention responses and dealing with individuals who may be experiencing mental and/or emotional crises.SLOs are also able to make referrals to County mental health services when necessary and appropriate. The SLOs focus on positive interactions with students to build bridges between the officers and the youth in our community.These interactions generate many benefits for both ends of the relationships,which continue once the SLOs return to patrol after their SLO assignment ends.The students get to know the officers as people rather than simply uniforms.In many cases since the inception of the SLO program,these relationships have resulted in students becoming part of our Police Explorer Program,and even full-time employees of the Police Department.We currently have 42 employees at the South San Francisco Police Department who attended schools in South San Francisco. Notable events the SLOs participate in while on site at the schools: ·Teach Youth Enrichment Services (YES) and Rights and Responsibilities classes ·Participate in Every 15 Minutes,Read Across America,Career Days,Fall Festival,Red Ribbon Week, Ruby Bridges “Walk to School” event, SARB meetings, and emergency response drills ·Provide presentations on bullying, social media, and overall personal and Internet safety ·Conduct welfare checks, school investigations, and foot patrols ·Interact with students during lunch time and recess through “Adopt-a-School” visits Notable events SLOs participate in outside of schools: City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/27/2021Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-613 Agenda Date:7/28/2021 Version:1 Item #:1. ·Youth Academy classes (since 2015) ·Boys and Girls Club events/sports ·Junior Giants baseball league ·Basketball coaching ·Explorer activities and meetings ·Countywide School Resource Officer meetings and trainings ·Assist high school students with their Senior Projects ·Police department station tours and birthday parties Call Response: SLOs respond to calls for assistance from school officials and employees.Based on the relationships that have been established,most of the time the SLOs are called directly on their personal cell phones by school administrators and informed of whatever incident transpired that may require a police response.SLOs immediately respond to the campus if they are available and handle the issues.If the SLO is not available and the incident needs immediate attention,he/she relays the information to SSFPD Communications and regular patrol officers are dispatched to the campus.Most of the time,the SLOs and school staff make an agreement about how the call for service will be handled,considering the needs of the school and the schedule of the SLOs.Any emergency calls for service (assaults,fights in progress,suspicious individuals on campus, violent intruders, etc.) should be reported through 911. Taking enforcement action is almost always a last resort,as schools often provide their own consequences (detention, suspensions,etc.).Generally,school staff members contact the SLOs for school-related crimes solely for documentation and counseling.In 2018 and 2019,there were only two arrests that took place on school campuses.All other criminal activity was mitigated and resolved through documentation,counseling,and administrative enforcement.SLOs also routinely mitigate traffic complaints and safety concerns around the schools. Major Recurring SLO Projects and Events EVERY 15 MINUTES Every 15 Minutes is a program that offers a real-life experience without the real-life risks, by simulating a fatal drunk driving collision using role players from the current student body at the local high schools. Every 15 Minutes is designed to expose teenagers to the potentially dangerous and life-changing consequences of drinking alcohol and texting while driving. This program challenges students to think about drinking, texting while driving, personal safety, and the responsibility of making mature decisions when lives are involved. This program is presented to the junior and senior student body at South San Francisco High School and El Camino High School, rotating between the two schools each year. OFFICER FOR THE DAY Officer for the Day is an event that is auctioned off at several of the elementary schools in South San Francisco, during the school’s annual fundraising events. The winner of the auction receives a voucher to have their child picked up at their home with a police escort and driven to school. When they arrive, the child is greeted by school staff and members from the police department. The child is allowed to be an “Officer for the Day” and is taken to the police department for lunch and for a private tour. This event has historically raised thousands of dollars for our local schools. POLICE DEPARTMENT TOURS City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/27/2021Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-613 Agenda Date:7/28/2021 Version:1 Item #:1. Each year our SLOs work with our elementary schools to organize police department tours for the students. Hundreds of students are brought to the police department on field trips and given a tour to meet our officers and ask any questions they may have. The purpose is to build relationships with the children and to help them understand the integral role the police play in our community. PROJECT YES (YOUTH ENRICHMENT SERVICES) Project “YES” is a program designed by the South San Francisco Police Department’s School Liaison Officers and is a supplement to the G.R.E.A.T. program. This program is five sessions long and is presented to all students in the 5th grade. It provides students with lessons on bullying, communication, decision making, on- line dangers, and substance abuse. This program allows the police and our students to build positive and cooperative relationships. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Rights and Responsibilities is a class taught to high school students by the SLOs. The class focuses on making proper choices as teens approach early adulthood. The curriculum also explains the role of law enforcement in the community, including the explanation of probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and lawful detentions. It is a follow up to the curriculum that is presented to students during the G.R.E.A.T. and Y.E.S. programs, and it gives our teenaged students an opportunity to ask questions and get answers directly from sworn police officers. RED RIBBON WEEK (CHALLENGE DAY) SLOs and other officers participate in several competitive field games and challenge the students in foot races, dances, sporting events, etc. This day also gives elementary students an opportunity to see police officers out of uniform and interact with them on a social level. The goal is to build positive relations with our youth. SCHOOL CAMPUS VIOLENT INTRUDER TRAINING SLOs work with staff at each of the schools to implement emergency plans in the event of an “active violent intruder” incident. All schools have a prearranged plan to follow if such an incident occurs. Practice drills are also conducted to ensure the best emergency response in the event of a real emergency. YOUTH GOVERNMENT DAY This event provides an opportunity for our local high school students to act as the “Chief of Police” for the day. The students spend several hours with the Chief of Police learning about the day-to-day issues faced by the police department. These students get to experience what it would be like to have a career in the field of law enforcement. FISCAL IMPACT Accepting of the MOU will not create any additional fiscal concerns. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Accepting of the MOU meets the City’s strategic goal of public safety. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council by motion approve and authorize the City Manager to exceute the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School District concerning the use and duties of School Liaison Officers (SLOs). City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/27/2021Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ 1 SSFUSD-SSFPD MOU *DRAFT* (ver. 9) This memorandum of understanding (MOU) is made by the South San Francisco Unified School District (“District”) and South San Francisco Police Department (“SSFPD”) regarding their mutual understanding of the matters described below. This MOU consists of guidelines to inform the relationship between the District and the SSFPD, which relationship is subject to annual review as set forth below. This document will work in conjunction with the District’s Expectations for Student Success Handbook (the “District Handbook”); the District and SSFPD’s joint Police-School Handbook; and all applicable city, state, and federal laws that provide guidance on how to properly handle common cases that are generated on school grounds. It is the intention of the District and SSFPD to maintain collaborative efforts to provide a safe and healthy school environment for students, staff, faculty, and visitors. In doing so, the District recognizes the impact School Liaison Officers (“SLOs”) may have on different student groups, and will prioritize student safety and relationship building. I. Goals and Objectives: a) Establish a positive working relationship in a cooperative effort to prevent juvenile delinquency and assist in student development. b) Protect the constitutional and civil rights of students. c) Maintain a safe and secure environment on school campuses which will be conducive to learning. d) SSFPD desires to promote positive attitudes regarding the role of police in society through non-punitive, alliance-building interactions with students and staff, and will seek the District’s partnership and input of District administrators in creating such opportunities. e) Conduct criminal investigations and refer student cases to restorative justice alternatives/programs and court diversion to the greatest extent possible. f) Ensure that all SSFPD Officers understand the needs, strengths, and challenges of various student groups based on race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, age, cultural group, immigration status, or affiliation with any other similar identifiable group. SSFPD currently provides all officers, including SLOs, with training in areas such as cultural diversity, racial bias prevention, crisis intervention, bias and racial profiling prevention and principled policing, along with other training. It is SSFPD’s intent to continue to prepare SLOs through training and experience to meet the unique requirements needed for an SLO to interact appropriately with students and staff in a school setting. Annually, SSFPD staff and District staff will meet to review SLO training requirements and collaborate on a joint list of required training for SLOs, recognizing that 2 over time, training needs may change. The SLO will receive specialized training regarding the education of students with disabilities, as identified under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and/or Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to help the SLO understand the unique needs of students with disabilities. II. Anti-Racism and Discrimination: The parties are committed to complying with existing laws that prohibit the use of students’ race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, age, cultural group, immigration status, or affiliation with any other similar identifiable group as the basis for providing differing levels of law enforcement service or inconsistent enforcement of the law. Additionally, in order for all students and families to feel comfortable and secure in the school environment, and consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s existing policies for the SSFPD, SLOs will not question students or their parents or family members about their immigration status. III. District's Role and Responsibility: a) Ensure student welfare as its highest priority. b) Establish and implement student safety and discipline programs. c) Develop procedures to handle campus safety issues. d) Develop emergency response procedures. e) Develop a school safety plan. f) Establish and follow procedures for referring SLO involvement. g) District staff shall not request information related to student contacts with law enforcement outside of the timeframe for which the District has responsibility for the student. h) Annually, District staff will receive and provide training on when to contact police and when not to contact them, pursuant to established District processes, to ensure clarity of expectations. i) Handle all student disciplinary concerns that are not mandatory in nature for and address situations without the involvement of SLOs (beyond the mandatory scope of CA Ed. Code § 48902 and Penal Code § 245). IV. School Liaison Officer Role and Responsibility: a) The School Liaison Officer (“SLO”) is a police officer; not a school teacher, school administrator, or school counselor. The SLO will work with families, individual students, 3 and other school staff members with counseling and guidance efforts when requested and appropriate. b) Coordinate all activities with the principal and staff members concerned; seek permission, guidance, and advice prior to enacting any programs within the school. c) When it pertains to preventing a disruption that would, if ignored, place students, faculty and staff at risk of harm, the SLO will assist with resolving the problem to guard against risk of harm. In all other cases, disciplining students and addressing other conduct deemed inappropriate is the responsibility of the District. d) Provide students, staff, and parents with a familiar and recognizable law enforcement contact. SLOs will work to create positive relationships with teachers, students and staff through appropriate social interactions when not responding to requests for assistance. This may include teaching classes on appropriate topics such as anti-bullying. e) Attend various sporting events and school activities as needed and as called upon by school administrators (subject to approval by the Superintendent or designee), for the purpose of proactive enforcement and community interaction. As set forth in Section III above, the District shall develop and implement an internal process for determining the need for SLO involvement at such sporting events and school activities. f) The District and SSFPD believe the U.S. Department of Education's position that “restraint and seclusion should be avoided to the greatest extent possible without endangering the safety of students and staff” is the best practice to follow in nearly all situations. The SLO should only use a physical restraint device (e.g. handcuffs or other restraints) in cases that require the physical arrest of a student for referral to the criminal justice system, or to prevent the involved individual from injuring themselves or others. g) If doing so is practical and will not interfere with other duties, when working on District campuses, the SLO will wear a designated alternate uniform to present a more casual appearance (i.e. – polo shirt with utility slacks). When wearing the designated alternate uniform, officers may have all necessary safety equipment for the performance of their duties, including without limitation a bullet-resistant vest worn under their clothing and all use-of-force tools to allow for appropriate de-escalation. V. Role of School Liaison Officers During Investigations at School Sites: a) School disciplinary investigations are a separate and distinct process from police investigations, which occur only when there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. In such cases, these processes will occur in parallel. In some cases, police may inform a school/district of an incident that falls within school/district jurisdiction to address at a school discipline level, and in other cases police may respond to a report of 4 a crime which has been investigated by the school/district. Although information gathered in parallel investigations of the same issue may be shared to inform the school and police of additional details not acquired within the scope of either of their independent investigations, searches and interviews facilitated by either the school/district or police do not replace or truncate a thorough investigation by either entity. If either the school/district or police have the benefit of shared information for the purpose of greater clarity of the issue being investigated, then either entity must weigh the facts/evidence and determine the appropriate disposition within their own jurisdiction (i.e. the school/district determines an appropriate disciplinary response or intervention within the school realm, and the police determine criminal charges in the legal realm). Although police may also be pursuing a criminal investigation outside of school and have legal grounds to interview the student at school and/or remove the student from campus, it is understood that an overlap of investigative authority of school/district officials and police officers may exist in some cases. To the extent possible, any police investigations into student conduct will occur off campus; however, in some circumstances, such as when the student conduct occurs at school, interviews or other forms of investigation may need to be conducted on campus. b) Any searches of students or their property by the SLO shall comply with the Department's Search and Seizure Policy. Absent exigent circumstances, the SLO should make every reasonable effort to alert a school administrator prior to conducting a search of a student or their property, including lockers. Whenever possible, the SLO should be accompanied by a school administrator when conducting searches. c) This relationship extends to SLOs who may work with the District’s site administrative teams during investigations of student and staff issues. The SLO is an employee of the police department and is a police officer. In matters involving student criminal offenses, the SLO may be asked to assist or provide resources to District officials conducting a school investigation. If, for example, the school officials ask the SLO to assist with interviewing, or to be present during a search procedure, that interview and search procedure is still governed by the school officials, who bear responsibility in that situation. If a school official asks a police officer to conduct a search, the search would still require the presence of an administrator, and the SLO would still be an extension of school authority. d) When school officials conduct an investigation and determine that a reportable crime has been committed, the police are notified. If the police subsequently dispatch an officer to the school, they begin a parallel investigation which may involve interviews and search procedures. At that point, the police are governed by their own investigation and are responsible for any interviews and searches they initiate within the scope of their authority. If an SLO is coincidentally dispatched in response to a school report of a crime, 5 the SLO is then viewed as a regular police officer fulfilling the responsibilities of a police investigation and not an extension of school officials. e) SLOs and other police officers assisting schools with investigations, when evidence of a crime has not yet been definitively determined, including when a school investigation has not yet revealed sufficient evidence of a crime, do not assume responsibility for searches just because they are asked to assist. If, during an investigation, an SLO or assisting officer determines that evidence of a crime is sufficient to then begin a police investigation, even when the school investigation is still ongoing, the officer would then assume responsibility for any parallel investigative processes the officer initiates at that point. The District’s investigation and the police investigation would be considered two distinct processes. VI. Guidelines for Distinguishing Between Disciplinary Misconduct and Criminal Offenses: One of the primary guiding principles in education and the criminal justice system is that mistakes made by young people should not carry lifelong consequences. Young people should be afforded multiple opportunities to overcome minor violations of law and school policy. The following points provide direction for determining the sanctions for an alleged violation of the District’s Code of Conduct, California statutes or local ordinances. a) School administrators have broad latitude in addressing minor violations of the District Expectations for Student Success Handbook, that may also be violations of the law. Minor violations of the District Handbook should be addressed by the school administrators without involvement of the SLO. Involvement of police on school campuses, beyond the mandatory scope of Cal. Ed. Code § 48902 and Penal Code § 245, will be at the discretion of District officials/site administrators, in the interest of the safety of the District’s learning communities. In exercising such discretion, District officials and site administrators will be required to undergo training and understand and implement District policies for SLO involvement. The District is committed to providing clear guidance and training to ensure it is able to manage student behaviors at the local level in most cases where there are minor infractions of the District Handbook that are also violations of law. b) In certain circumstances, school administrators may be required to report situations to law enforcement for investigation, including but not limited to a child who has been subjected to abuse or neglect, victims of several types of crimes, and threats of violence. c) SLOs are responsible for criminal law issues, not school discipline or poor behavior issues, unless expressly requested to participate by the school/district. Absent a real and immediate threat to student, staff, or public safety, incidents on District campuses involving public order offenses (including disorderly conduct; disturbance /disruption of schools or public assembly; trespass; loitering; profanity; and fighting that does not involve physical injury or a weapon) are considered school discipline issues to be 6 handled by school officials, rather than criminal law issues warranting formal law enforcement intervention (e.g., issuance of a criminal citation, ticket, or summons, filing of a delinquency petition, referral to a probation officer, or actual arrest). d) Whenever possible, a student will not be arrested at school when the arrest can be made effectively elsewhere. An arrest at school is the last resort after all other avenues have been exhausted, unless the child poses a real and immediate threat to student, teacher, or public safety; or a judicial warrant specifically directs the arrest of the student in a school. e) If circumstances require an arrest to occur on school grounds, the SLO shall be mindful of the educational environment and of other students who may witness the arrest. Whenever possible, arrests should not occur during the lunch hour, before or after school, or in open areas on a school campus where there is a potential for a large number of student witnesses. f) Except in exigent circumstances, school principals / principals’ designees will be advised prior to an arrest of a student on school grounds. The student's parent or guardian will be notified of a child's arrest as soon as practicable. VII. Student Rights: a) Except in exigent circumstances, the SLO will inform school administrators prior to conducting a probable cause search of a student on campus. b) The SLO will inform school administrators prior to questioning a student on school grounds to the greatest extent possible, except in situations where the child poses a real and immediate threat to student, teacher, or public safety, and such advance notice to school administrators is not feasible. c) Absent a real and immediate threat to student, staff, or public safety, physically invasive searches by a SLO will not be conducted on a child, except as noted above in circumstances in which an SLO is conducting a search pursuant to an independent criminal investigation. VIII. Training and Reports on SLO Activity: a) The SLO will provide an annual report on SLO Program activities. The District and SSFPD will collaborate on identifying the information to be included in the annual report. b) SSFPD currently provides all officers, including SLOs, with training in areas such as cultural diversity, racial bias prevention, crisis intervention, bias and racial profiling prevention and principled policing, along with other training. It is SSFPD’s intent to continue to prepare SLOs through training and experience to meet the unique 7 requirements needed for an SLO to interact appropriately with students and staff in a school setting. Annually, SSFPD staff and District staff will meet to review SLO training requirements and collaborate on a joint list of required training for SLOs, recognizing that over time training needs may change. This joint list of required trainings will be set forth in a side letter that is updated annually. c) The SLO will receive specialized training regarding the education of students with disabilities, as identified under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and/or Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to help the SLO understand the unique needs of students with disabilities. d) If the District offers trainings or publishes policies regarding non-punitive approaches to behavioral management in the District, then the parties expect that the SLO will participate in the trainings and be familiar with the content of the trainings and any such policies. If the District has implemented any specific programs designed to improve overall school climate or respond to student behaviors in specific ways, the District may invite the SLO to participate in any trainings associated with those programs. e) SSFPD will pay for all SLO training described in this MOU. IX. SLO Performance and Review a) In the event that a school/district has concerns regarding the actions of an SLO relative to this MOU, a representative of the school/district will refer the concerns initially and in writing to the direct supervisor of the SLO, after which the school/district representative and SLO supervisor will meet and confer. A meeting may also be conducted with all parties, including the SLO, to mediate and resolve any problems. b) In the event that consultation at this initial level does not resolve the concern, then a school/district representative and the SSFPD Chief or their designee will meet and confer and attempt to resolve the matter. c) Notwithstanding the process described in the immediately preceding subsections, the SSFPD Chief is solely responsible for decisions about the assignment of SLOs, hiring and continuing employment of SLOs, and supervision and evaluations of the performance of SLOs. In the event that a school/district concern regarding the actions of an SLO relative to this MOU is not resolved through the steps described above, the SSFPD Chief will reassign the SLO and exercise reasonable diligence to identify and provide a qualified replacement. X. Program Evaluation and Assessment: a) The School Liaison Officer Program will be assessed annually; the evaluation of the Program will be conducted jointly between the SSFPD and the District. The annual 8 Program assessment may include, but is not limited to the following areas: 1) Success of established Program goals and objectives. 2) An internal survey of school administration, faculty, and student council members, primarily concerning perceptions of safety and security relative to the Program. b) The parties also agree to establish a meeting schedule in order to maintain regular and open communication; to evaluate the effect of this agreement; and to suggest improvements and adjustments that may be necessary. XI. Mutual Indemnity: SSFPD and the District agree to indemnify and hold each other harmless against any and all third-party losses, claims, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses and injuries (including personal injuries or death) arising from or in connection with investigations at school sites, to the extent that such losses, claims, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses or injuries arise out of the negligence of the indemnifying party. In the event of concurrent negligence of the parties, liability for any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property would be apportioned according to the California theory of comparative negligence. XII. No Third-Party Beneficiaries: Nothing in this MOU is intended to or shall confer upon any person other than the parties any rights or remedies hereunder. XIII. Termination: a) The initial term of this MOU shall commence as of the date of execution and continue for one year. Thereafter, this MOU shall automatically renew each year for an additional one-year term, unless either party gives written notice of termination to the other party. Such termination is effective thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice sent by the terminating party. b) This MOU may be terminated without cause at any time before expiration with thirty (30) days’ written notice by the terminating party. c) All notices under this MOU shall be in writing and delivered by email AND U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses: If to South San Francisco Unified School District: 398 B Street 9 South San Francisco, CA 94080 If to South San Francisco Police Department: P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the dates set forth below: South San Francisco Unified School District Date: ____________________ ________________________________________ Dr. Shawnterra Moore, Superintendent South San Francisco Date: ____________________ ________________________________________ Mike Futrell, City Manager Agenda Item 1. 21-613 Consideration of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School District concerning the use and duties of School Liaison Officers (SLOs). (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney, and Jeff Azzopardi, Police Chief) Legislation Text SSFUSD - SSFPD SLO MOU 2021-07-26.pdf 12 Public Comments Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 3:59pm PDT Oppose Good evening, I am writing to strongly encourage the SSF City Council to vote against the MOU draft for the SLO program. Police officers do not belong in schools period. There is plenty of data supporting this and the youth in our community have stated not feeling safe with cops on campus. If you truly want to serve the community (especially our most vulnerable) while knowing the systems of oppression that already exists in enforcing the school to prison pipeline, than you should not support this vote. We need more counselors, social workers, etc, not cops. Thank you! Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 3:59pm PDT Oppose Do not approve the current MOU. Police do not belong in schools. You are wasting my tax dollars! Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 3:56pm PDT Oppose MOU draft between SSFUSD and SSF police. It lacks specific language that guarantees that officers should not be teaching students given their lack of training. Police presence creates a contentious, disruptive, and potential traumatic experience for students, especially students whose family has been incarcerated. The MOU absolves the police of any accountability and does not ensure the safety of the students. The broad language throughout the MOU allows for the police to avoid accountability. It is an MOU for police immunity causing harm and wasting tax dollars and not for student safety. Letters from the ACLU and peer reviewed data and researched confirm ineffectiveness and harmfulness of police presence in schools. This is further supported in that the most successful do not have police presence. They quite frankly lack the training the best serve the students and can and have caused harm. The MOU lack specificity with regards to listing out when police are allowed to come onto campus. Additionally, there has yet to be any written assessment to determine how the SLO program will be evaluated. This is a sensitive issue that requires care and close analysis of all the existing data and research, all of which show that police presence is harmful to the students. Furthermore, it is inadvisable to approve an expensive and wasteful program without setting clear parameters and measurements as to what is deemed as an effective program. All students need to surveyed and have input on measuring if this expensive program helps or harms the students. Money could be otherwise spent on supporting well trained youth workers (non- police) to best serve the students. This is an opportunity for the council show their commitment to the students. Replace the officers with well trained youth workers and mentors educated on specifically working with young people. Dolores Piper at July 28, 2021 at 3:54pm PDT Oppose The MOU with SSFPD and SSFUSD is vague and could lead to bigger problems. It does not list specific protections for the civil rights of students, does not require parents/guardians to be present or in consent with searches and/or interrogations by police officers, what incidents should be handled by school staff vs police officers, and still allows officers to be on campuses for non-emergency, non criminal reasons. There is such a need for funding for one on one tutoring, more counsellors, more mental health professionals that money needs to be directed to those desperate needs. Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 3:53pm PDT Oppose Dear city council, vice mayor Nagales, and mayor Addiego, I'm writing to you today to express my opposition towards the current version of the MOU between the police department and school district. I believe the agreement does not go far enough to ensure the rights, safety, and protection of our children on campus. Californian k-12 students already have few protections afforded them by the law. One protection, preventing police officers from lying to minors during interrogation as they lead to false confessions, was just passed in the state of Illinois- the only example of its kind in the country. As it stands, the MOU only reiterates policies that are currently practiced by the police department. If this MOU is passed today, as a city, we are saying that we are okay with police interrogating minors on campus alone. That police can talk to children without parents' formal consent. I'm an adult and I am terrified of talking to police by myself, so what do we expect our children to feel? Children deserve the right to feel safe and secure in school in terms such as food security and mental health as well as the threat of violent authority such as ICE and the police. I encourage the city council, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Addiego to take more time, in collaboration with the school board, to develop an MOU that guarantees our students their rights to the feeling of safety and security in school and limit police presence in schools to only real emergencies that require them. Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 3:51pm PDT Oppose Hello, City Council. I'm writing in this evening as a current SSFUSD student to ask that you do not approve the newest draft MOU for SLOs on SSFUSD campuses. There are a glaring number of problems with the MOU that has been proposed, but a couple things definitely stick out the more I read over it. I think the most hypocritical thing I've seen so far is the part where the MOU felt it was necessary to point out that a cop is not a teacher, administrator, or counselor, but then went on to say that they would work with students with counseling and guidance efforts when requested and appropriate. Under what context would it ever be necessary to call on somebody who isn't a counselor for help with counseling? This is just plain silly. This MOU feels like it's trying too hard to keep SLOs on campuses when there's no real need for them in school environments. SLOs and other police officers are trained in violence and arrest tactics, not counseling or guidance tactics. Under no circumstances whatsoever would it be appropriate to call for violence and arrest tactics in an environment that is meant to foster growth, learning, and safety. A cop on a school environment is like a fish out of water. They're not supposed to belong together. I also fail to understand what makes a police officer more qualified to teach anti-bullying classes than any other individual. Why would we need to keep them on campuses for that specific purpose in order to "create positive relationships"? What makes a police officer more valued to speak on bullying than an actual counselor who is trained to talk through problems with students and help them mediate conflicts? Are police officers going to help stop bullying by helping solve students' issues at home? Isn't that what counselors are for? Why aren't we defunding this SLO program and reinvesting that money into hiring more counselors instead? Another thing I'd like to point out is that nowhere in this MOU does it say that parents are required to be informed when officers are interviewing, questioning, or interrogating students. This MOU does not require parental consent in order for officers to interact with students in situations where students' safety may be put at risk. How is this not illegal? How do you ensure that students retain their right to silence and aren't exploited by officers who will try to ask them invasive questions, knowing that students aren't aware of their rights? It seems so silly to have an entire section labeled "Student Rights" and then have nothing about students' rights to remain silent or ask for their parents. A lot of the wording in this MOU is also too vague. What's an example of an "exigent circumstance"? What is the "greatest extent possible"? And more importantly, what real, grave consequences do officers face if they break the rules outlined in the MOU or fail to adhere to it? The student handbooks have whole sections dedicated to consequences that students face for misbehavior, some of which aren't even that damaging, like graffiti or drawing on school property. Where are the consequences for SLOs who interrogate students, invade their privacy, and potentially traumatize them? Where are the counselors to help the students heal from such experiences afterwards? Property is replaceable. Students are not. Yet the consequences for defaming property seem to be worse than for traumatizing children. Why is that? There are a lot of issues with this current draft of the MOU, and if the district and city are really set on creating an MOU to formalize the SLO program and continue the school-to-prison pipeline, the very least they could do is come up with a better one that doesn't have contradictions or holes in it every three sentences. Once again, I am asking that City Council votes against the new draft of the MOU, decides to keep the SLO program suspended, and commits more time and effort into hearing from student voices and seeking out practices that will ensure the safety and success of all SSFUSD students. Not just safety and success for some--not just for the ones with access to resources, or the ones who are rich, or the ones with high grades, or the ones with unproblematic home lives--but safety for ALL. Thank you for your time. Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 3:11pm PDT Oppose Hello City Council, I am writing to strongly urge you to end the SLO program and use the funding to support more positive programs in collaboration with SSFUSD. The students have made it abundantly clear that the program does not make them feel safe, and in many cases, it worsens their experience at school. There are no good arguments in favor of the program other than "its what we've always done". I believe that the city should set clear parameters on when police should be called, and it should only be in emergency situations. Because of the infrequency of events that would require an armed officer of the law, I do not believe it is a good use of taxpayer dollars to continue funding this program. $500,000 of taxpayer money annually being spent on officers that are being called for minor behavioral issues is not a good use of our limited resources. Please use this money on programs that will benefit students instead. Thank you. Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 3:11pm PDT Oppose This method of public comment is obtuse. I encourage the City Council to vote against the most recent draft of the SSFUSD MOU for SLOs. The current draft is rushed and, thus, flawed. It would not serve the City nor the School District in it’s current form. The MOU should: - not allow police on campus for non-emergency, and ultimately public relations or recruitment purposes; eliminate the ability of police to conduct surveillance, investigation, and arrest functions within schools in order to preserve the intended purpose of schools (to teach) and reduce truancy; ensure accountability by delineating specific protocols that protect the civil liberties of children, collect data on the program; and provide clear, democratic processes to hold SLOs to account; develop healing-informed policies, programs, and personnel that can best address underlying issues and improve the educational environment at our schools; train school staff and administrators to use the aforementioned alternatives instead of calling police. The current MOU does not meet the above standards, and I elaborate more below. First of all, police simply do not belong in schools; they’re not trained in pedagogy, counseling, or other relevant professional care work. The current MOU still allows police to enter campuses for non- emergency, and ultimately public relations purposes. Police are not trained in care work; they trained in violence work.Cops can still respond to campus emergencies without the SLO program, and without an MOU. Police in schools are harmful to the demographic of school children our district serves. While the MOU and recent amendments call for uniform changes, implicit bias and other forms of training, this all ultimately fails to mitigate against the harms of introducing police in schools. The SLO program only benefits SSFPD as a recruitment and public relations tools; it serves no pedagogical, let alone public safety purposes. They can conduct public relations and recruitment elsewhere, off our campuses, outside of school learning time, and without our school district’s resources. Our students have other needs that can only be met by an investment into healing-informed programs, policies, and personnel. SSFUSD students don’t need cops, they need more care workers. The American School Counselor Association recommends one counselor for every 250 students. SSFUSD currently has 1 counselors, social workers, and/or psychologists for every 1,300 students. This is half as much as the state wide average. Beneficial alternatives to police in schools exist, from providing cultural, gender, and/or sexuality specific programming, to health and wellness resources. The current MOU’s language is ambiguous that fails to delineate clear protocols that protect students most vulnerable to the harms of policing. The MOU uses ambiguous, non-quantifiable, nor objectively measurable language and qualifications like “to the greatest extent possible” and “every reasonable effort” that ultimately allows police to harm students and undermine the fundamental mission of schools, which is to teach.The MOU does not oblige SLOs to notify a school administrator during a search, let alone the child’s parent or guardian, for searches and/or investigations. The MOU needs to specify these kinds of protections so that children are protected during investigations. The current MOU’s does not include clear protocols to track this program, nor how to hold SLOs accountable for misconduct - this leaves the District & the City unable to evaluate the impact of the program.The MOU should provide a clear protocol obliging data collection, including the demographic data of children SLOs interact with, to evaluate the operation and impact of this program.The MOU should specify a clear protocol for filing complaints against SLOs, and evaluating said complaints. The MOU calls for an automatic renewal without reviewal by elected officials, which is simply anti- democratic and unacceptable. The MOU should specify that this program will be evaluated annually, then subject to renewal by both the City Council and School Board. Finally, I would like to highlight that a broad constellation of community voices have consistently demanded an end to the SLO program. SSF students & community members consistently called for the program's end - by submitting public comment for over a year, and, recently, students even marched and rallied to end SLOs. Legal & juvenile justice leaders – the American Civil Liberties Union and Fresh Lifelines for Youth - joined our community's call to end the program through well researched, open and public letters. Ultimately, I ask that that the City Council: - vote against the existing draft of the MOU; - dedicate time, attention, and resources to learning about and introducing more caring policies, programs, and personnel to best serve our children. Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 3:09pm PDT Oppose Good evening. I’m writing in to say that the current MOU does NOT go far enough to protect student and families. Police should not be on campus period. Their needs to be exact language on what constitutes as an emergency that would be appropriate to have an officer on campus(such as a school shooting). They should not be called for things like “defiance” especially since that term is so vague. There should be a direct path for students, teachers, families and other civilians to complain about the SLOs AND what how SLOs will be held accountable. Just this past week the school board suspended the program and cops were on campus per your email blast about them dropping off Costco’s donation. How will the police department be held accountable for breaking the suspension? This MOU doesn’t go far enough, take it back to revision or better yet cancel the program all together. Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 2:50pm PDT Oppose Hello City Council, This interface to submit a virtual public comment is very cumbersome. I recommend using Google Forms as it is much easier for people to use. Also, I find it odd that the Special City Council Meeting at 6:01 PM didn't have the eComments tab or link available. The MOU between our schools and SLOs is on the Special City Council Meeting agenda. Does this mean that you didn't want people to comment on this very important safety matter? Since the eComment isn't available, I am commenting here. This comment is in opposition to the MOU between SSFUSD and SSFPD for SLOs at our schools. Police presence is not required at schools. The MOU does not explicitly state student protection or rights or how SLOs performance will be evaluated and the reporting requirements are not stringent enough. Although it says "SLOs will tell administrators prior," there is no mention of discussion- what if the school administrator does not want this to happen- do they have the power to prevent and stand in defense of the students? What will SLOs do to prevent injury or defamation of the students? SLOs should be required to write and submit reports for each incident they are involved in to the school administration and be transparent with students. Why are SLOs performance only evaluated once a year and why is their presence at school contingent on how the Chief of Police views them and now how the school views them. I believe the school student body should have a say in who and which SLOs they want to keep for their own protection. Best case scenario is to remove SLOs from schools. Use taxpayer money to pay for school counselors and nurses and in school restorative justice circles and groups. Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 2:47pm PDT Oppose South San Francisco City Council, I am asking that you discontinue the School Liaison Officer (SLO) program at SSFUSD. The students have presented convincing factual and peer reviewed research that demonstrates the ineffectiveness and harm of officers interactions with students. It is also important to mention that one of the authors of the MOU was the chief. This a conflict on interest in that he, like many other chiefs, in other cities are likely to act in the interest of securing overtime pay and huge salaries for their department. This program benefits the officers’ salaries while harming the students since these officers lack adequate training when interacting with students. The police dept already eats up so much of the city’s budget and no extra and unnecessary funds should go to them. This is similar to nearly every city and in the last year many citizens are recognizing the need to transform education, starting with removing officers from campus. The SLO program should be discontinued in the next year and the years to follow. Guest User at July 28, 2021 at 2:44pm PDT Oppose Good Evening City Council, I am writing for the discontinutation of the SLO program. The SSFUSD board has spent almost a whole year ignoring student and community concerns. I’m asking you the City Council not to ignore what the students and the community are requesting. Student presentations have brought up factual evidence and lived experiences that prove cops on campus are harmful for a school environment and perpetuate the school to prison pipeline. School safety should not be reliant upon a system that has historically endangered POC and mentally ill individuals. Thank you for your time.