MARS — A proposal to spend up to $20,000 on a law enforcement vehicle for the Mars Area School District failed Tuesday night after three residents questioned the need for the vehicle and asked the school board to delay the purchase until its purpose and additional costs could be publicly explained.
Finance Item 12 on the Aug. 11 agenda called for the board to “Authorize Jeff James, Director of Security, to purchase a law enforcement vehicle at a total cost not to exceed $20,000.”
With seven of the board’s nine members present, the board ultimately rejected the purchase, 5-2. Board President John Kennedy and board member Jennifer DiCuccio were absent. Vice President Kevin Hagen presided over the meeting in Kennedy’s absence.
The vote followed an attempt to table the item that led to some confusion among board members over what a vote against tabling would mean.
The vote on the vehicle occurred before the meeting’s open public-comment period, when several residents and educators later addressed the board regarding the ongoing teacher contract negotiations.
Before the board considered the item, three residents used the public comment period to question why the district needed its own law enforcement vehicle and what costs beyond the $20,000 purchase price taxpayers could ultimately incur.
Ellen Schilling of Valencia told the board she wasn’t opposed to spending money on school safety but said the district had not publicly demonstrated the need for the vehicle.
“I’m not opposed to safety spending, but I am opposed to approving a purchase that hasn’t been justified in public,” Schilling said.
Schilling said the agenda item identified neither a specific vehicle nor how it would be used and provided no information about operating costs or a replacement schedule.
She also questioned how a vehicle would fit into the district’s current security model, which she described as having school police officers assigned to individual buildings.
Schilling asked the board how many incidents during the previous school year required a district-owned vehicle, where the expenditure appeared in the district’s budget and what the five-year cost of ownership would be when insurance, fuel, maintenance and equipment were included.
“Safety is priceless,” Schilling said. “Documentation is free.”
She asked the board to table the purchase until the administration could provide a written justification, intended use and total cost of ownership.
Rebecca Mueller of Mars raised similar concerns.
Mueller questioned whether the $20,000 could be better directed toward other student needs and asked what additional expenses would accompany a district-owned police vehicle, including maintenance, registration, insurance, inspections and markings.
She also questioned who would drive the vehicle, how many miles would be placed on it and whether it would leave school district property.
“A parked police car isn’t a safety necessity,” Mueller told the board.
A third resident, Laurie Carey, questioned the expenditure while noting that teachers who travel between district buildings use their personal vehicles.
“$20,000 to drive around in the school district when you have teachers that have to drive around from building to building in their own car?” Carey asked.
When the board later reached Item 12, a motion was made to table the proposed purchase.
Another comment indicated James had previously explained the need to board members, but not publicly.
The motion to table ultimately failed, bringing the $20,000 vehicle authorization before the board for a vote.
The board then rejected the purchase, 5-2.
Board member Mike Bordt, who is also an Adams Township police officer, voted against purchasing the vehicle.
Following the meeting, Bordt told The 228 Times that his experience in law enforcement and his familiarity with the district’s previous security arrangement contributed to his opposition.
“The school police do not have roving officers,” said Bordt. “They are tied to individual buildings. They do not make arrests. If someone needs to be arrested, the municipality that holds jurisdiction will handle that.”
Before the district established its current security operation, Mars Area School District contracted with Adams Township Police Department for police services in the schools, and Bordt was among the officers who worked in the district under that arrangement.
According to Bordt, board members were told the proposed vehicle would provide a visible police presence outside the high school.
“It was sold to us as they ‘want a police car to park in front of the high school,’” Bordt said. “A sign is a lot cheaper than a car.”
He also questioned whether the $20,000 authorization reflected the vehicle’s true long-term cost, pointing to expenses for markings, maintenance and upkeep.
“It’s not gonna ever be just $20,000,” explained Bordt.
The district did not provide a detailed public explanation during Tuesday’s meeting of how the proposed vehicle would be used or what additional costs would accompany its purchase.
The 228 Times will seek additional information from the district regarding the intended purpose of the vehicle and the administration’s rationale for recommending its purchase.
