In the News: School officers move to South San Francisco Unified School District for decision

Faced with a tight deadline, the South San Francisco City Council fulfilled its role in outlining what it believes to be the duties and responsibilities of student liaison officers on the city’s school campuses, leaving final approval of the agreement up to the South San Francisco Unified School District. 

 

“It’s not 100% of what the school district might want or what the city might want but that’s what collaboration is,” school board Trustee Patricia Murray said during a special school board and city subcommittee meeting Monday, ahead of Wednesday’s City Council meeting. 

 

District and city staff have been negotiating a memorandum of understanding on campus policing amid outcry from current and former students and other community members who wish for the district to no longer contract with the police department for student liaison officer services.

 

The intent of the MOU is to clearly define the role of SLOs on campus and when they should or should not be engaged in student disciplinary matters. As detailed in the draft SLO, approved by the South San Francisco City Council Wednesday, July 28, campus staff is to internally handle most disciplinary matters unless otherwise directed by the education code.

 

With the fall semester starting Aug. 11, the district’s Board of Trustees was not confident both parties would come to an agreement before classes began, opting to suspend the SLO program until an agreement was signed. 

 

Despite the tight deadline, trustees suggested staff take sufficient time in creating a strong MOU while the board focuses on safely reopening campuses. Trustees also shared support for scheduling a special meeting to approve a final version of the document. 

 

During Wednesday’s council meeting, Councilmember James Coleman also encouraged city staff to spend ample time crafting the document, noting officers will still respond to emergency calls.

 

“There is no rush and I would like to make sure we’re doing a service to our students, our parents and our community in that we’re passing an MOU that is well-researched and to the best of its ability,” Coleman said. 

Alternatively, Mayor Mark Addiego, a member of the subcommittee that endorsed the drafted MOU, shared urgency in getting a deal settled before students returned to campus. 

 

“I don’t want to be the political entity that drops the ball and ends up with a suspended SLO program,” Addiego said. 

 

 

Councilmember Buenaflor Nicolas said she felt the process was not rushed and said she saw no issue with the MOU as drafted, suggesting she was in a “different universe” after listening to concerns raised by public speakers. 

 

As during previous public meetings on the SLO subject, a series of public speakers said they felt officers made students feel uncomfortable. Some requested the council reject the MOU, leaving the program suspension in place, while others asked that the MOU remove any wording in support of fostering strong relationships between the department and students. 

 

Siding with public speakers, Coleman said the district should limit social interactions with students and called for classes typically facilitated by the police department to be conducted by other trained professionals. Agreeing with Coleman, Councilmember Eddie Flores said therapists and other local organizations better trained on mental health could be a resource for programming on bullying. 

 

Additionally, Coleman said he’d like for officers to be casually dressed and unarmed when at nonpublic facing events such as career fairs. As drafted, the MOU calls for SLOs to be dressed in approachable uniforms like polo shirts and utility pants as often as possible but permits officers to carry all use-of-force tools. 

 

Police Chief Jeff Azzopardi pushed back on Coleman’s suggestion, noting officers are legally permitted to conceal carry whether on or off duty including on school campuses. If requested to attend a paid event in which the officer was not permitted to carry, he suggested the officer would “refuse even if I tried.” 

 

“If the school district wants a police officer there, that police officer will be there and that police officer will be armed every time,” Azzopardi said. “I will not have one of our officers in uniform or out of uniform being paid and being on the street without a gun.” 

 

He conceded that off-duty officers are prohibited from carrying firearms in certain situations such as attending San Francisco Giants games at Oracle Park. Councilmembers questioned whether the school district could institute similar restrictions to which Azzopardi said he was unsure of the legal parameters but officers would comply or opt to not attend school events. 

 

 

Azzopardi did signal department alignment on ensuring students are discretely transported off campus without handcuffs if necessary, noting only one student and one teacher have been arrested in the district in the past three years. 

 

“Our goal actually going forward is to not have to take anyone out in handcuffs,” Azzopardi said during Monday’s subcommittee meeting. “My goal would be that nobody will see anybody in handcuffs.” 

 

During Monday’s subcommittee meeting and Wednesday’s council meeting, he assured officials he would reassign any SLO the district felt uncomfortable with having on campus if unable to come to an agreement. 

 

Azzopardi also highlighted the legal constraints officers face when interrogating children ages 17 and younger. As of 2021, California law requires the department to contact county counsel if interested in speaking with a minor, he said. An administrator is also required to be present during any officer interaction with a student. 

 

In the interest of full transparency, Flores and Councilmember Mark Nagales requested the MOU specifically state student rights while also outlining when a campus employee may or may not contact the police. Coleman also requested the document highlight the department’s officer complaint process. 

 

“This is the first year we’re putting together a formal agreement document between this relationship and I’d like to see it with details,” Flores said. “The more details the better.”

 

Given that the document is an MOU and not a binding contract, City Attorney Sky Woodruff told councilmembers both parties can make changes when they see fit, wording councilmembers requested be codified in the document. 

 

If either party were to violate agreements in the MOU, each also has the authority to terminate the agreement, Woodruff said. An annual review of the SLO program required by the MOU will also allow both governing agencies to review how well the program and MOU function in practice, City Manager Mike Futrell said. 

 

“In the years to come we can continue to refine this program to meet the intent that we all have to make this successful,” Futrell said during the Monday subcommittee meeting. 

 

With unanimous support from the council, the draft MOU and suggested amendments will now return to the school district Board of Trustees that may suggest additional changes before taking a final vote. The board’s next official meeting will be Aug. 12 and a special meeting before school returns has yet to be scheduled. 

 

 

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106