MARS — One week after rejecting a proposal to purchase a police vehicle for the Mars Area School District, the school board reversed course Tuesday night, voting 7- 2 to authorize the district’s director of security to spend up to $30,000 on one. But something significant changed between the two votes.
On Aug. 11, three residents questioned why the district needed its own police vehicle, how it would be used and what additional costs taxpayers could ultimately incur. The district did not provide a detailed public explanation of the vehicle’s intended use before the board rejected the purchase, 5-2.
On Aug. 18, Director of Security Jeff James provided that explanation.
Most importantly, James said having a police vehicle could allow him to respond more quickly if an emergency occurs at another school.
Currently, James said, he would have to use his personal vehicle and obey normal traffic laws while traveling between buildings.
“If I’m in a police vehicle, I can respond quickly,” James told the board, adding that it could allow him to reach an emergency “as fast as you would want me to to save your kid’s life.”
By the end of the discussion, the board had added the vehicle purchase to Tuesday night’s agenda and authorized James to select and purchase one at a cost not to exceed $30,000.
The board approved the police vehicle purchase by a 7–2 vote, authorizing spending of up to $30,000 for the vehicle and necessary equipment. Board members John Kennedy, Kevin Hagen, Anthony DePretis, Jennifer DiCuccio, Madelynn Marburger Barkley, Justin Miller and Aaron Rose voted in favor. Mike Bordt and Joseph Joswiak cast the two dissenting votes.
Questions raised a week earlier
The Aug. 18 discussion was markedly different from the one held just seven days earlier.
The original Aug. 11 agenda asked the board to authorize James to purchase a law enforcement vehicle for no more than $20,000.
Ellen Schilling of Valencia told the board she supported spending money on school safety but said the district had not publicly justified this particular expenditure.
“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 asked how the vehicle would be used, how many incidents during the previous school year required one and what its five-year cost of ownership would be when insurance, fuel, maintenance and equipment were considered.
“Safety is priceless,” Schilling said. “Documentation is free.”
Rebecca Mueller of Mars raised similar concerns about maintenance, registration, insurance, inspections and markings, while also asking who would drive the vehicle and whether it would leave school district property.
A third resident, Laurie Carey, questioned spending $20,000 on a district vehicle when teachers who travel between school buildings use their personal vehicles.
The board ultimately rejected the purchase 5-2.
Only seven of the board’s nine members participated in that vote. Board President John Kennedy and board member Jennifer DiCuccio were absent from the Aug. 11 meeting.
A different public discussion
One week later, the board heard an argument from the opposite direction.
During public comment Aug. 18, an Adams Township resident who identified himself as a 20-year Pennsylvania State Police veteran and an experienced physical-security assessor urged the board to reconsider.
The resident told board members that a marked police vehicle could serve as a visual deterrent to someone considering criminal activity at a school and could allow police personnel to respond more quickly between buildings.
He called a district-owned police vehicle a “low-cost, high-impact solution” and described the lack of one as a gap in the district’s current security plan.
“I would like the school board to reconsider purchasing of [a] police vehicle,” he told the board.
Later in the meeting, James provided his own explanation of why he had requested one.
What would the vehicle do?
James told board members the district isn’t attempting to establish a roving police operation.
“We’re not going to be a roving police force,” James said. “That’s not what it’s about.”
Following football games and other large events, James said, a marked vehicle positioned along the road with its emergency lights activated could help slow traffic as students and spectators leave the campus.
James also pointed to the district’s changing traffic environment. If an emergency required students to be evacuated between buildings, he said, officers could be tasked with controlling traffic as students cross increasingly busy roads.
Then James described a more serious scenario.
If he received a report of shots fired at one of the district’s other buildings, James said, he would currently have to get into his personal vehicle and travel there while obeying traffic signals and other rules of the road.
His ability to respond, James said, is “inhibited just by the fact that I’m in a personal vehicle.”
A police vehicle would give him the ability to respond differently in an emergency.
James said the vehicle could therefore serve the district during major events and as a rapid-response asset during a “dynamic situation.”
From $20,000 to $30,000
The proposal approved Aug. 18 also differed financially from the one the board rejected a week earlier.
The Aug. 11 agenda capped the purchase of the law enforcement vehicle at $20,000.
During the Aug. 18 discussion, board members referenced approximately $20,000 for the vehicle and another $10,000 for outfitting it. The authorization ultimately discussed by the board was capped at $30,000.
James was given discretion to identify an appropriate vehicle, which could include a vehicle requiring police equipment or one already outfitted for law enforcement use. The district would still have to comply with applicable purchasing requirements.
Board members also discussed the possibility of future school-safety grant funding, although administrators said the grant had not yet been advertised and it wasn’t known whether purchasing a vehicle would be an eligible use.
Not everyone was convinced
The additional explanation convinced nearly the entire board, but not Mike Bordt.
Bordt, an Adams Township police officer who previously served as a school resource officer in the district, was the lone dissenting vote when the board reconsidered the purchase Aug. 18.
Following the meeting, Bordt told The 228 Times his opposition should not be interpreted as opposition to school safety or the officers currently working in Mars schools.
“So I’m obviously very serious about safety and security,” Bordt said. “I’ve seen the district through many phases of safety and security since 2012 as a police officer and SRO. I’ve spent numerous hours training and caring for the students and staff and making sure the schools remain safe.”
Bordt said that in a “perfect world,” having a police vehicle at every district building could be beneficial. In fact, he said, two police vehicles were available when Mars contracted with Adams Township for school policing.
His concern is how a vehicle fits into the district’s current security model.
“We don’t have a roving police force for the school,” Bordt said. “Should something happen, officers are assigned to their buildings and they can’t give that up to go to another building.”
Bordt said officers from Adams Township, Middlesex Township, Mars and Northern Regional police departments would also respond to a serious incident in the district.
“Without getting into the security stuff too much, I believe there are a lot of other avenues that I would take,” he said.
Bordt emphasized that his position should not be interpreted as criticism of the School Police Officers currently working in the district.
“I don’t want to disrespect the officers that are in the school,” Bordt said. “A lot of the SPOs we have are very highly qualified and I’ve worked very well with them. A few of them I would consider good friends and talk and work with them weekly.
Bordt also drew a distinction between the district’s School Police Officers and the School Resource Officer model previously provided through Adams Township.
“School Police Officers are important and School Resource Officers are also important,” Bordt said.
Because municipal SROs also work in the surrounding community, Bordt said, they can develop familiarity with students and their families beyond what occurs inside the schools.
“We worked well together and there was no reason to disrupt that,” he said of the district’s previous relationship with Adams Township Police.
Bordt also questioned statements made during the Aug. 18 meeting that suggested a price cannot be placed on safety and security.
Bordt questioned how statements that a price cannot be placed on safety and security square with the district’s earlier decision to move away from having Adams Township officers working in its schools.
Bordt said his opposition ultimately comes down to priorities.
With teachers currently working through contract negotiations with the district and other needs facing Mars schools, he said there are other places he would rather see the money spent.
“With teachers being in negotiations and the district having many other needs — and important ones — I can think of other ways I’d rather spend this money in the safety and security world and in general,” Bordt said.
Mars Area School Board members and residents gather for the Aug. 11 board meeting. At that meeting, the board voted 5-2 against purchasing a police vehicle. One week later, the board reconsidered the purchase and approved it 7-2.
More generally, Bordt said his vote reflects what he sees as his responsibility as an elected board member, including on issues involving safety and security.
“I was voted for by nearly 5,000 people for a reason,” Bordt said. “I’m doing my best to stand up for what I believe is right and represent them.”
Police vehicle meets teacher contract
The repeated consideration of the vehicle also became intertwined briefly with another major issue facing the district — ongoing negotiations with the Mars Area Education Association.
One board member noted that the police vehicle had been tabled, reintroduced, voted down and was now being considered again.
“If we spent this same effort on the teachers contract, I think we might have something,” the board member said.
The comment drew applause from the audience.
The board member nevertheless said safety and security were important and indicated support for purchasing the vehicle.
Another board member pushed back on connecting the two issues, saying the district must continue conducting its other business while contract negotiations continue.
“This school district still needs to operate and we still need to care about the safety and security of our students and the teachers and support the staff that’s here regardless of whether we are doing other things at the same time,” the board member said.
What changed in seven days?
Before the final vote, a board member offered an explanation for why reconsidering the purchase was appropriate.
The earlier discussion, the member said, was intended to give the board a better understanding of the request from the district’s security professional.
The Aug. 18 meeting gave James the opportunity to publicly make that case.
“This is to me totally appropriate that he comes in, makes [a] presentation, and we make our decision based on what he’s looking for,” the board member said.
One week after rejecting the purchase, the board authorized James to move forward.
The second meeting answered one of the central questions raised Aug. 11 — what the district intends to do with a police vehicle.
Some of the other questions raised by residents a week earlier remain less clear.
The Aug. 18 discussion established a purchase limit and addressed the cost of outfitting the vehicle, but the board did not publicly provide a detailed long-term estimate for insurance, fuel, maintenance, inspections and eventual replacement — costs residents specifically asked about Aug. 11.
