Eight weeks ago, on June 26, the West Windsor-Plainsboro School Board voted 5 to 3—the smallest possible majority—to approve armed police in our schools. We are entitled to know the logic and motivations of the five board members who approved.
Now, we’ll be in the dark as to three of them—board members Martin Whitfield, Rachel Juliana and president Anthony Fleres, who had nothing to say before voting yes.
As for the two other board members who approved—Dana Krug and vice president Michele Kaish—a sound basis for their yes vote is lacking.
Specifically, Kaish called the decision “years in the making,” and said her support for using class III officers “solidified when the board had a lengthy and in-depth discussion on this topic at our retreat last December,” referring to a four-and-a-half hour special meeting of the board, eight months ago on Dec. 20, 2017, with only two-thirds of the board present.
If you read the approved minutes of that meeting—and it doesn’t take long, it’s only three pages—you’ll see clearly that no discussion of the use of class III officers, or of security personnel of any kind, took place at that meeting. It is therefore simply not a credible explanation that the meeting’s discussions solidified, or informed at all, anyone’s opinion on the class III officers.
As far as the decision being “years in the making,” there is no record of any discussion by this board about armed police in the schools prior to Feb. 20, just six months ago, when the topic was first brought up at a special meeting of the board on that date, where again only two-thirds of the board was present.
What we should do is consider what the two members in favor—the two who bothered to comment—actually had to say.
Kaish expressed strong emotion, of being “incredibly sad” to use exact words, but without any reference to objective facts or risks.
From Krug, we heard a positive personal experience of her own with the police, certainly a heartwarming story, but only that one anecdote, and nothing else to justify this policy affecting our large community.
The common theme here is the board members’ focus on themselves and their own perspectives. The rest of us seem to be left out of the mix. And of course, the other three said nothing. Nothing.
Any member of this board who cannot or will not explain their vote of approval on such an important measure, or worse, provides justification that doesn’t exist, should not be voted back on to this board on election day.
— John Hinsdale, West Windsor
