R-2 board questions officer contract

Roxie Murphy
Posted 9/26/18

BELLE —   Maries R-2 Superintendent Dr. Patrick Call informed the board of education Sept. 18 that the Belle Police Department hired one full-time officer, but still do not have a security …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

R-2 board questions officer contract

Posted

BELLE —  Maries R-2 Superintendent Dr. Patrick Call informed the board of education Sept. 18 that the Belle Police Department hired one full-time officer, but still do not have a security officer for the district.

As the district moves forward, neither the school board or the city has discussed or approved the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that printed in the Sept. 12 edition of The Advocate.

“We are still working on the memorandum of understanding,” Call said.

During the Aug. 14 city meeting, Call told aldermen he would draft a proposal for the MOU between the district and the Belle Police Department and give it to the city to review at the September meeting. The MOU would contain the verbal agreement between the district and Marshal Joe Turnbough. 

The MOU was dropped off at city hall Friday, Sept. 8, by Call personally. It was then passed to the city attorney Mary Weston for review. There was not time for the MOU to return, so it was not discussed at the Sept. 11 city meeting.

Call added that he sent the document to the district’s attorney in the mean time, and he made a few “tweaks” in the wording. Now neither party has an exact contract to work with, and the city is expected to discuss and approve the proposal at the Oct. 16 meeting.

“I think we are good to go once everything is set,” Call said. 

Board Director Tom Kinsey questioned how the district was going to pay for the officer, especially since they are already a month into the school year. The school board had already approved a set salary and reserve for the officer at their June meeting.

“That price should be different now (per month),” Kinsey said.

Call explained that the agreed upon price per month would not change — but the district would not pay for the months they did not have an officer.

Details about compensation from the district to the city for the officer, as well as scheduling, were in the submitted contract. However, calls to two school board members and an alderman Tuesday afternoon revealed neither of the parties had received copies of the contract to review as yet.

“I have not yet seen the contract,” said Amy Kiso-Bledsoe, board treasurer.

The original board vote from the June 19 set aside $21,600 with $9,401 in reserve for a security officer. Discussion from board member Garret Bialczyk at that time also stated that the officer would be paid at an hourly rate. 

The new MOU does not say anything about an hourly rate or overtime. Kiso-Bledsoe confirmed no votes to change the security officer’s hiring details have been made since June 19.

Details since the boards discussion have changed. Under the new MOU, the district would be paying a total of $27,391 yearly. The city would be financially responsible for a benefits package.

“We are only going to pay one-twelfth of a salary ($2,225) each month,” Call said.

Kinsey said he does not want to pay that amount for the first month that the district didn’t have an officer. Call said the district has not made any payments as yet.

“I have not talked to Joe recently, if he has had anymore leads,” Call said. “They are still looking for another officer to hire on.”

The city actually hired two officers following the Sept. 11 meeting, one full-time and one part-time deputy. Aldermen said the part-time officer is supposed to be used as a reserve officer. They have yet to hire a security officer.