Hello all, I have a municipal client, a small rural town, that is working to reach agreements with a local school district as well as the County Sheriff to provide police presence for one of the school district's elementary schools. The elementary school is located in an unincorporated portion of the county, and the town does not plan to annex the school given that it lies approximately 3.5 miles away from the town limits and to do so would require the town to maintain rights-of-way alongside a public roadway leading from the town to the school (which could become very expensive). All of the school district's other facilities are located within the town limits. The Sheriff normally would patrol the elementary school, but because the Sheriff's office is about 12 miles away from the school and the town's police department is a much shorter distance away, and also since the school district and the town's police department have a great working relationship, I have been called upon to draft an interlocal agreement that essentially would allow the police department to provide law enforcement services to the elementary school. The town fully acknowledges that it will remain liable for the conduct of its police officers pursuant to 11 OS 34-103(C), which we intend to include within the agreement along with other applicable statutory references. While we have a draft of an agreement for the school district, the town wants a separate agreement with the Sheriff's office that will have to be approved by the County's insurance carrier. Accordingly, I am seeking input and recommendations for what should be included within the agreement between the town and the Sheriff's office. Thanks in advance for any recommendations. *D. David Haggerty* OBA #21201, CBA #193, SBT #24086687 *D. David Haggerty, PLLC* Attorney At Law 121 N. 3rd Ave. Durant, OK 74701 Office #: (580) 924-0405 Email: ddavidhaggertylaw@gmail.com Office Hours: Monday-Thursday, 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. & 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. & 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.

I'll address a couple of issues that have come up in responding to questions for OMAG. First, the strong (recent) push for SROs is assuredly the result of State funding that is being thrown at every School District. It's roughly $96k per District per year for the next 3 years, and the Legislature fully funded the full 3 years. One issue this brings up is - once that money dries up in 3 years, will your District (if you did an SRO agreement) be able to afford to continue the program? Obviously there's a chance the Legislature could continue to provide the funding. But they aren't funding it out of current year money - they took $150m of unused funding from a prior fiscal year to fully fund the program. So if they are going to continue to provide funding, where's that money going to come from? Brad just highlighted another issue. If the person who is going to serve as SRO is only working on a Reserve commission from your City/Town, then the max number of hours they can work under that commission is 140 hours per calendar month. Another issue is one we've heard about from multiple communities - School District reaches out and wants the City to issue a commission to a person who will be a School employee so that the School can have that employee serve as their SRO. Oh so many issues. For starters, the commission would have to be a Reserve commission, since a FT commission can only be issued to a person who is employed and paid by the commissioning agency for working in excess of 25 hours per week enforcing the law. Second, they are legally your employee (at least for GTCA purposes) - the reason they want your commission is so that the person can act as a law enforcement officer, but they can only do that pursuant to authority you gave them (the commission). School Districts can form their own Campus Police Departments and, when they do so, they can commission Officers. The reason they are asking is because they haven't done so. But the bottom line is - your commission means your employee, at least for civil liability purposes. I also have a concern about the School paying a person to perform their City/Town duties. As I said, the reason they need your commission is so that they can exercise your power and authority. Wouldn't this be the direct receipt of money for the performance or non-performance of ones duties for the City/Town? The disconnect is that they think the person is their employee, hence why they are paying them. But think about scope of employment under the GTCA - the good faith performance of job duties and tasks lawfully assigned. A School District cannot assign law enforcement duties or tasks to anyone unless they have established a Campus PD. The only way this person can perform law enforcement duties, tasks or functions is pursuant to your commission. I had a call from a Town a few weeks ago that was a bit similar to David's question. A District wanted the Town PD to provide an SRO, but the problem was that the School was in the County. School had approached the County and, while County seemed receptive, County wasn't doing anything to actually move forward with setting up the program. So they came to Town seeing if Town would provide an SRO. The Chief readily identified a fundamental issue - he can't send an Officer to be the SRO since the Officer has no LE authority outside the Town limits. Which brings us to David's question. Can this territorial jurisdictional issue be worked around through some sort of agreement between City/Town and County and another agreement between City/Town and School District. I can't definitively say why, but this 'feels' like it's not permissible. My thinking is: the authority to exercise County's LE authority under 34-103(C) is really designed to be a cooperative effort with each agency still retaining their own responsibility but the other agency can help that agency out. We cross Dep so that we can help County out on County investigations or incidents. But we don't cross Dep so that we can call our own shot and spin up a criminal investigation that solely relates to things happening in the County. The same is true when you look at the authority granted in 21 O.S. 99a. It would be one thing if the District and the County SO had entered into an agreement but, due to staffing or whatever other issues, County didn't have the manpower to fully staff the SRO position and asked City/Town if they would send an Officer to assist. The County is still the entity with the responsibility to provide an LEO to the School - it's just that City/Town is assisting the County in County performing its own governmental functions. Here, however, City/Town would be contracting to provide an LEO for a school located in the County. The City/Town Officer wouldn't be exercising LEO authority in the County as a way of assisting the County SO - they'd be doing so in fulfillment of the City/Town's contractual obligations. I guess the fundamental question is - can a City/Town enter into a direct agreement with an out-of-City/Town School to provide a law enforcement Officer to that School when the only source of LE jurisdiction the SRO would have comes from the County? We have no inherent authority to fulfill the obligation we'd be creating under the contract with the District. The authority we are relying on is County's - to fulfill purely a City obligation. I guess the easiest way I can say it - 34-103 and 99a weren't really designed or intended to be used in more than a sporadic, one off way, but here we'd have what essentially would be a FT Officer whose lone assignment (during the school year at least) would have them stationed, performing LE duties, outside their jurisdiction. I can't say definitively that it's not permissible. But I can say that it certainly 'feels' wrong. On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:56 AM Brad Carter via Oama <oama@lists.imla.org> wrote: > I am in the process of pursuing the same thing and have run into several > issues involving the use of Reserve Officers (they can only be used for 140 > hours a month), restrictions on funding sources (school district paying the > officers directly may be a conflict of interest) and a multitude of other > things. OMAG has advised us on a few issues that we did not believe were > problematic, but apparently could pose a problem if not carefully > considered. > > > > I would be interested in how other municipalities are doing this. The > last thing our community wants to do is discourage the use of uniformed > officers as School Resource Officers (SROs), but the County and > Municipality cannot afford to pay for full-time officers to remain at > multiple school locations all day. This appears to be a problem statewide. > > > > M. Bradley Carter > > Attorney at Law > > P.O. Box 1508 > > 306 N. Second > > Seminole, OK 74818-1508 > > 405-380-9990 > > 405-380-9991 facsimile > > > > *From: *D. David Haggerty via Oama <oama@lists.imla.org> > *Sent: *Tuesday, December 19, 2023 9:36 AM > *To: *oama@lists.imla.org > *Subject: *[Oama] Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement at a School > > > > Hello all, > > > > I have a municipal client, a small rural town, that is working to reach > agreements with a local school district as well as the County Sheriff to > provide police presence for one of the school district's elementary > schools. The elementary school is located in an unincorporated portion of > the county, and the town does not plan to annex the school given that it > lies approximately 3.5 miles away from the town limits and to do so would > require the town to maintain rights-of-way alongside a public roadway > leading from the town to the school (which could become very expensive). > All of the school district's other facilities are located within the town > limits. The Sheriff normally would patrol the elementary school, but > because the Sheriff's office is about 12 miles away from the school and the > town's police department is a much shorter distance away, and also since > the school district and the town's police department have a great working > relationship, I have been called upon to draft an interlocal agreement that > essentially would allow the police department to provide law enforcement > services to the elementary school. The town fully acknowledges that it > will remain liable for the conduct of its police officers pursuant to 11 OS > 34-103(C), which we intend to include within the agreement along with other > applicable statutory references. While we have a draft of an agreement for > the school district, the town wants a separate agreement with the Sheriff's > office that will have to be approved by the County's insurance carrier. > Accordingly, I am seeking input and recommendations for what should be > included within the agreement between the town and the Sheriff's office. > Thanks in advance for any recommendations. > > > *D. David Haggerty* > > OBA #21201, CBA #193, SBT #24086687 > > > > *D. David Haggerty, PLLC* > > Attorney At Law > > 121 N. 3rd Ave. > > Durant, OK 74701 > > Office #: (580) 924-0405 > > Email: ddavidhaggertylaw@gmail.com > > Office Hours: Monday-Thursday, 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. & 1:00 p.m.-4:00 > p.m., Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. & 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. > > > -- > Oama mailing list -- oama@lists.imla.org > To unsubscribe send an email to oama-leave@lists.imla.org >

I’ve worked with two municipalities who made agreements with the school to provide SROs. Those municipalities accepted the payment from the school and credited it to the general fund for use in paying PD salaries, but paid the remainder of the officer’s wages and benefits as part of the PD’s expenses. During periods when the officer is not working his full number of hours at the school, he is in the rotation for the PD. So, for example, over Christmas break, the SRO will be working a regular shift. Same during other breaks, including the summer. The county sheriff’s office provided a sample agreement and I also have a couple of others. I’ll be glad to share if it would be helpful. Thanks, Kim Spady From: Brad Carter via Oama <oama@lists.imla.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 11:56 AM To: D. David Haggerty <ddavidhaggertylaw@gmail.com>; oama@lists.imla.org Subject: [Oama] Re: Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement at a School I am in the process of pursuing the same thing and have run into several issues involving the use of Reserve Officers (they can only be used for 140 hours a month), restrictions on funding sources (school district paying the officers directly may be a conflict of interest) and a multitude of other things. OMAG has advised us on a few issues that we did not believe were problematic, but apparently could pose a problem if not carefully considered. I would be interested in how other municipalities are doing this. The last thing our community wants to do is discourage the use of uniformed officers as School Resource Officers (SROs), but the County and Municipality cannot afford to pay for full-time officers to remain at multiple school locations all day. This appears to be a problem statewide. M. Bradley Carter Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1508 306 N. Second Seminole, OK 74818-1508 405-380-9990 405-380-9991 facsimile From: D. David Haggerty via Oama<mailto:oama@lists.imla.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 9:36 AM To: oama@lists.imla.org<mailto:oama@lists.imla.org> Subject: [Oama] Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement at a School Hello all, I have a municipal client, a small rural town, that is working to reach agreements with a local school district as well as the County Sheriff to provide police presence for one of the school district's elementary schools. The elementary school is located in an unincorporated portion of the county, and the town does not plan to annex the school given that it lies approximately 3.5 miles away from the town limits and to do so would require the town to maintain rights-of-way alongside a public roadway leading from the town to the school (which could become very expensive). All of the school district's other facilities are located within the town limits. The Sheriff normally would patrol the elementary school, but because the Sheriff's office is about 12 miles away from the school and the town's police department is a much shorter distance away, and also since the school district and the town's police department have a great working relationship, I have been called upon to draft an interlocal agreement that essentially would allow the police department to provide law enforcement services to the elementary school. The town fully acknowledges that it will remain liable for the conduct of its police officers pursuant to 11 OS 34-103(C), which we intend to include within the agreement along with other applicable statutory references. While we have a draft of an agreement for the school district, the town wants a separate agreement with the Sheriff's office that will have to be approved by the County's insurance carrier. Accordingly, I am seeking input and recommendations for what should be included within the agreement between the town and the Sheriff's office. Thanks in advance for any recommendations. D. David Haggerty OBA #21201, CBA #193, SBT #24086687 D. David Haggerty, PLLC Attorney At Law 121 N. 3rd Ave. Durant, OK 74701 Office #: (580) 924-0405 Email: ddavidhaggertylaw@gmail.com<mailto:ddavidhaggertylaw@gmail.com> Office Hours: Monday-Thursday, 8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. & 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. & 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m.