ILNews

School safety bill introduced into General Assembly

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Calling it a “good first step” for school safety, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller outlined a proposed bill that would create a uniform standard for the school resource officers.

Senate Bill 270, introduced Jan. 3 by State Sen. Pete Miller, R-Avon, defines the qualifications for being a school resource officer as well as the duties of that position. In addition, the legislation would provide matching grants that school corporations could use to support their own SROs.

Miller is a member of the Senate Education and Career Development Committee.

Both Zoeller and Miller emphasized this bill is an initial step and not the single answer to improving school safety.

“I think the state government, the legislators, the governor-elect (Mike) Pence, (education) superintendent-elect (Glenda) Ritz will all have several opportunities to consider proposals on school safety,” Zoeller said, “but as a first step, Sen. Miller and I would like to propose to expand upon a program that’s currently in place in the state of Indiana and has shown proven benefit.”

Although Zoeller noted this bill “reflects a little bit” of the shooting at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December, he emphasized his office was working on this legislation before that tragic event. It builds upon the current system in place by providing a $10 million boost in additional funding.

“I think it’s particularly important these positions be expanded upon in light of the tragedy in Connecticut,” the attorney general said of SROs. “I think school safety is on the minds of a lot of parents and the public at large.”

The legislation defines that the SRO must be either a school employee or law enforcement officer who has completed a training program and received certification. The duties of these officers include promoting school safety, addressing bullying and mentoring students.

Zoeller backed away from questions that the bill opens the door for teachers and coaches to become SROs. He noted to be a school resource officer, individuals will have to go through law enforcement training and that the position is most closely related to law enforcement.

A key hurdle, Zoeller and Miller acknowledge, is money. In a press release, the funding was described as “conceptual at this point.” The bill calls for an appropriation of $10 million into the Indiana Safe School Fund from which state matching grants will be drawn. These grants of up to $50,000 would be available to school corporations for two years.

Miller called the grants “seed money.” Permanent funding would have to come from the local sources or other legislative means.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT