Editor’s note: An update on the SRO agreement situation will be provided at the Common Council meeting tonight, May 6. The following press release was issued by the School Board President Stephanie Hicks and the Common Council President Patrick Singer at 4:01 p.m. on May 6. Following that statement we will provide background on this matter.
Whitewater, WI – Joint Statement from the Whitewater Unified School District Board President Stephanie Hicks and Whitewater Common Council President Patrick Singer
We acknowledge and appreciate the concerns expressed by parents, students, educators, and community members regarding the School Resource Officer (SRO) contract. Our students’ safety, well-being, and success are a shared responsibility, and we remain committed to working together to ensure our schools are secure, safe, and supportive.
This is to notify you that diplomatic conversations on the Student Resource Officer agreement are ongoing between leadership governance groups, the Common Council, and the School Board.
We aim to rebuild trust, support our educators and law enforcement professionals, and ensure every student feels secure and safe in our schools. By working together in good faith, we aim to strengthen relationships across our institutions and ensure a thoughtful and responsive outcome.
We also want to appreciate the hard work contributed by the staff of both institutions in this complex situation, and their service to the Common Council and the School Board.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
By Lynn Binnie
Whitewater Banner volunteer staff
whitewaterbanner@gmail.com
The Whitewater Unified School District School Board voted on April 28 to solicit bids for a contract to provide its School Resource Officer [SRO]. This is a service that has historically been provided by the City of Whitewater Police Department, but District Superintendent Caroline Pate-Hefty had indicated that she felt that it was necessary to consider making a change due to three areas of concern related to recent experiences: 1) Failure of the department to provide coverage when the SRO is absent, which by the end of April would be 27 days. 2) Failure of the department to follow the district’s policy requiring parents to be contacted prior to interviewing students. 3) Disagreement with the department’s new procedure requiring district staff to contact dispatch for all needs related to the SRO.
On April 9, 2025, Police Chief Dan Meyer had received a message from Pate-Hefty, referencing the fore-mentioned concerns and indicating that the district would not be accepting the automatic renewal of the SRO contract that was to occur on July 1, unless red-lined changes made by Pate-Hefty were immediately accepted. That contract had been in effect for five years.
City Manager John Weidl on April 10 responded to Pate-Hefty that the SRO agreement is a formal intergovernmental agreement between the city and the district and consequently any notice of non-renewal must be authorized by action of the school board. Since such action had not occurred, Weidl indicated that the city did not recognize Pate-Hefty’s memo as a valid notice of termination. Both the council and school board were copied on Weidl’s response. He concluded “We remain committed to working with District leadership in good faith and in a manner that honors the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation that has historically benefited both institutions and the families we serve.”
Meyer updated the Common Council on the situation at its April 15 meeting, suggesting that they propose to the school board a short-term extension, perhaps 120 days, to the agreement, which would allow time for further discussion between the entities, consultation with legal counsel, and input from the new district superintendent. In March Pate-Hefty had announced her resignation effective July 1. The council voted to forward the proposed extension agreement to the district.
At the April 28th school board meeting, the parent of a high school student spoke of his concern about the circumstances in which his son was interviewed by the department. Pate-Hefty introduced a proposed SRO agreement that would be used to solicit bids for an SRO to begin service on July 1. It was mentioned that the agreement addressed the three areas of concern that Pate-Hefty had identified. There was no indication of what the deadline would be for bid submissions or the anticipated decision-making process. There was also no mention of the city’s offer for a short-term extension of the agreement, nor there was any discussion of the city manager’s position that the district had not provided a valid notice of termination. The agreement was approved unanimously with a two-year term with an option to give notice by May 1 of termination with documented cause prior to the second year.
The adopted agreement requires that the entity providing the SRO ensure that another law enforcement officer will be provided to cover for any absence of the regular SRO. It requires that “The SRO, or law enforcement officer conducting a student interview, will contact the student’s parent or guardian before conducting the interview unless the interview is initiated by a student, involves child abuse, or concerns an urgent matter of health and safety.” The current agreement with the city provides that the district will pay 60% of the wages and benefits of the SRO. The proposed agreement also includes the district’s share of the SRO cost as being 60%. It is unclear as to what entity would be expected to pay the remaining 40% if the city was not providing the SRO.
The proposed agreement requires the SRO to be a law enforcement officer, which state statutes define as “any person employed by the state or by a city, village, town or county for the purpose of detecting and preventing crime and enforcing laws or ordinances, who is authorized to make arrests for violations of the laws or ordinances which he or she is employed to enforce.” It would appear that a private security firm would not be able to fulfill that criteria unless they employed sworn officers. Further, a number of issues would need to be addressed between an outside entity and the police department in terms of such items as reporting requirements and arrest powers.
The Banner spoke with Dan Meyer, police chief, who indicated that he had inquired of some area law enforcement agencies as to whether they would be interested in an SRO arrangement. They indicated that they would not be interested. Meyer indicated that it is his hope that relationships will be rebuilt and an agreement may be reached between the district and the city/department, as he believes that the use of an outside entity to provide the services would be a mistake. He confirmed that it is his plan and hope to still be able to place a second SRO in the district, as was the expectation in the recently passed referendum. Among other things, doing so would resolve the matter of covering SRO absences, as he would expect to have at least one SRO on duty every day.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Editor’s note: The following press releases were issued by the city manager and district superintendent on April 30. They are printed here, sometimes in slightly different formatting, without editing. Additionally, the Common Council agenda for May 6 includes comments from the police chief on the subject beginning on page 319.
Press release from city manager – 4/30/25
To the City of Whitewater and members of the Whitewater Unified School District community-
Whitewater has always taken student safety seriously. That’s why the City has invested heavily in our
School Resource Officer (SRO) program. That’s why, just months ago, this community passed a public
safety referendum that specifically included funding for a second SRO to support our students better
and bring our officer-to-student ratio down from approximately 1,900:1 to 950:1.
And yet, despite all that progress, our SRO program is now in jeopardy.
Earlier this month, Whitewater Police Chief Dan Meyer received notice from the District’s outgoing
Superintendent that the current SRO agreement would be canceled unless the City accepted a list of
non-negotiable terms immediately. Chief Meyer informed the Common Council, and the City responded
responsibly and unanimously. We offered a 120-day extension to maintain school safety while allowing
time for collaboration on a revised agreement.
That offer was rejected without public discussion. The letter and proposed agreement submitted by the
City were never included in the public board packet. No comments were taken. No information was
shared with WUSD parents, students, or staff. These materials—approved by the City Common Council
in open session—were withheld from public view and discussed in closed session, bypassing any
opportunity for community input.
The District is now pursuing a bidding process for school security services. That path will almost certainly
result in privatization.
Recognizing the stakes, Chief Meyer proactively contacted the other public agencies that could
realistically submit bids. They declined. As Chief Meyer has consistently expressed, law enforcement is
not a service for sale at a discount. The Whitewater Police Department is a professional, accountable
public agency with career officers sworn to protect and serve this community.
The District is now positioned to either replace sworn officers with a private company or remove the
SRO program altogether to save a relatively small amount of money. Yet, based on the referendum
results, families would not expect that, and our students and WUSD staff would not deserve that.
At the May 6, 2025 Common Council meeting, the City will present a revised SRO agreement developed
under Chief Meyer’s leadership. It reflects community values and addresses the concerns previously
raised by the School Board. We remain fully committed to public safety and maintaining a genuine
partnership with the District. We focused on cost transparency, clarified communication expectations,
and offered solutions in good faith. What we need now is a willingness to move forward together.
The newly seated School Board has a clear opportunity to correct this course. We respectfully ask them
to consider the revised agreement with public transparency and shared responsibility. We also
encourage parents, staff, and community members to remain engaged and make their voices heard.
Our WUSD students, parents, and staff deserve more than a rushed bid for privatized school security.
They deserve stability, protection, and public accountability throughout the process.
Sincerely,
John S. Weidl
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Press release from Caroline Pate-Hefty, district superintendent
Response to City of Whitewater Communication
WHITEWATER, WI — I would like to take a moment to clear up some misinformation shared with
our community today by the City of Whitewater regarding the Whitewater Police Department
School Resource Officer Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that guides and governs their
work within the Whitewater Unified School District (WUSD).
To be clear, the claim that our suggested changes are about money is false and misleading. We
are advocating for safety in our schools and for our students’ and parents’ rights, which have been
repeatedly violated.
On April 9, 2025, after a series of failed attempts to address concerns regarding these violations of
student and parental rights, I shared the following memo with the Whitewater Police Department, in
consultation with our School Board attorney and Board President: SRO MOU.pdf
The memo invites the WPD to continue to work with the Whitewater Unified School District.
However, it maintains that the following must be addressed:
- Failure on the part of the WPD to cover dates of absence for the SRO. While the
community supported a referendum to increase police staffing, there is still no plan in place
to provide coverage for our students when the SRO is not on-site. This year alone, we have
had 27 days of no coverage. This is a safety concern. - The WPD has failed to follow WUSD Board Policy 445, which pertains to contacting
parents before interviewing our students. This is a violation of student and parental
rights in school. When we contacted WPD to address these concerns, department officials
have repeatedly stated that this policy does not pertain to them. The memo asks that WPD
address this in its new MOU. Families have shared with us that their children feel that they
have been targeted at school. - In April, the WPD implemented an arbitrary new procedure requiring WUSD staff to
contact “dispatch” for all needs related to the SRO. This procedure creates an
unnecessary step when district staff are already contracting the SRO full-time on our
campus. Additionally, considering the public nature of dispatch, we want to protect
often-sensitive information about students and their families. When we addressed this
matter with the WPD, the department indicated it would wait until a new superintendent is in
place to implement the procedure. This is unacceptable.
Rather than address any of these concerns, the WPD and City of Whitewater met and sent the
WUSD School Board a memo suggesting that the MOU be extended by 120 days. The
communication failed to address any of the above points. To that end, on April 28, 2025, the WUSD
School Board reviewed and decided not to extend the service with the WPD until the concerns are
addressed.
Given that the school district attempted to renegotiate this contract and address these issues many
times to ensure the safety of our students and protection of their rights, the WUSD Board
unanimously voted to open up the MOU process to any outside agency that will adhere to these
basic needs and provide for our students’ and staff safety. WUSD will invite both public and private
entities to apply under the new MOU, including the City of Whitewater and WPD.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide clarification and accurate information regarding this
important matter.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Press release from city manager – 4/30/25
Many of you have likely seen the public response issued by Superintendent Pate-Hefty on
behalf of the Whitewater Unified School District (WUSD) regarding the School Resource Officer
(SRO) agreement. I want to directly address and clarify the inaccuracies in that release, and I
encourage you to review Chief Dan Meyer’s detailed draft memo that will be included in your
packet for the May 6 meeting.
Let’s be clear: the district’s public narrative is not only misleading—it omits essential context
while mischaracterizing the role and actions of our law enforcement professionals.
- Misleading Claims About SRO Absences
The school district’s claim of “27 days of no coverage” lacks essential context. Chief Meyer’s
memo outlines in detail the breakdown of these absences:
Many were due to required state and national training—such as sexual assault investigations
and mass casualty response.
Others involved standard leave time and temporary patrol support due to city staffing needs.
Even during these absences, Whitewater PD maintained availability for rapid response as
needed.
To address this concern constructively, we proposed transitioning to a per diem rate so the
District only pays for services actually rendered. This proposal is directly responsive to their
concern and was included in our redlined contract. - Lawful Investigations vs. Board Policy
The District asserts that the WPD “violated” parental rights by not following School Board Policy
445 regarding prior parental notification before interviews. What they fail to disclose is that
Our SRO was involved in a high-priority investigation involving alleged possession of Child
Sexual Assault Material (CSAM) by a student—material that potentially victimized another
student.
The actions taken by the SRO and detective were legal, timely, and necessary to protect
students and preserve evidence.
State law and prosecutorial guidance—not school policy—govern how law enforcement must
act during such investigations. We are always willing to coordinate where possible, but no
school policy can override the legal obligations or judgment of sworn officers.
- Dispatch Requirement Misrepresented
The claim that routing contact through dispatch is arbitrary and burdensome misrepresents its
purpose. This standard practice is designed for:
Ensuring rapid response in emergencies.
Creating a documented chain of communication.
Preventing liability exposure for both the District and the City.
We’ve already seen the risks of circumventing dispatch firsthand, when school staff contacted
an off-duty officer who was unaware of an unfolding situation—causing delays and confusion.
The procedure we proposed prevents that.
Final Note
The district’s press release makes no effort to acknowledge the thoughtful, good-faith efforts
from the City and Police Department to negotiate a workable, student-centered solution.
Instead, it selectively frames events to justify a process that circumvents partnership in favor of
a transactional “bidding” model. That model may serve politics, but it does not serve student
safety.
Chief Meyer will provide additional context at the upcoming Council meeting. In the meantime,
I encourage all of you to rely on the facts as laid out in the memo, not selective rhetoric from a
press release.
Best,
John S. Weidl
