By Lynn Binnie
Whitewater Banner volunteer staff
whitewaterbanner@gmail.com

The Whitewater Unified School District (WUSD) on May 19 issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the School Resource Officer (SRO) program. As was previously stated in The Whitewater Banner, ongoing discussions and disagreements between the district and the City of Whitewater and its Police Department (WPD) regarding the long-standing WPD-provided program resulted in a school board decision on April 28 to request proposals from other agencies. The city had indicated that it did not intend to submit a proposal, but that decision will be revisited at the Common Council meeting on May 20.

Included in the agenda for the Common Council meeting is a memo from City Manager John Weidl. In the memo he indicates that in a May 16 meeting with city representatives, WUSD representatives stated that the council-approved proposal for a 120 day extension to the SRO contact with WUSD was never considered by the school board, and they never saw a formal letter that was sent by the police chief together with a redlined draft contract for immediate review. Weidl also indicates that the announced purpose of the school board’s closed session on April 28 was discussion of the SRO agreement and negotiations, but per the WUSD representatives the agreement itself was not discussed but rather a document of grievances about an employee not employed by the district was presented. It was also reported at the meeting on May 16 that allegedly an outside entity had already received the RFP and planned to respond, despite no apparent public distribution nor receipt of the RFP by the city.

Weidl’s memo includes the following:

What the Public Should Know
As this issue moves into public discussion, and likely into media coverage or third-party
commentary, the following must be made clear:

• The City of Whitewater adhered to every legal, ethical, and professional
  expectation: we proposed a path forward, thoroughly documented it, and
  remained responsive.
• The School District Administrator [Superintendent] failed to fulfill their duty to ensure proper
  review of our proposal, resulting in decisions being made without transparency
  or adequate deliberation.
• The grievance list created by one of its members was used in closed session
  without legal grounds or public disclosure.
• The RFP was launched without notifying the City, while at least one outside
  entity was already preparing a response.
• Despite all of this, we are now being asked to submit a proposal into a process
  built on procedural shortcuts, undisclosed documents, and legal ambiguities.
  The public deserves to understand that this is not a policy disagreement. It is a
  breakdown of basic governance, transparency, and accountability. We owe it to our
  residents, students, and officers not to lend credibility to a process that has been deeply
  flawed from the outset.

Finally, Weidl requests council direction on “1) Whether the city should submit a response to the RFP by May 27 [the due date has now been changed to May 30] or instead decline to participate due to legal and ethical concerns. 2) Whether to initiate a formal records request for the grievance document…. and 3) Whether to notify the District Attorney of a potential violation of Open Meetings Law….”

In suggesting to the school board that it approve soliciting bids for the SRO program, Superintendent Caroline Pate-Hefty stated that she believed the step was necessary due to the following concerns: 1) Failure of the police 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.

The Banner obtained a copy of the RFP on May 19, which was indicated to be the issue date. Bidders (“qualified individuals and/or organizations”) are required to review and sign off on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and to include a quote of the costs for providing services outlined in the sample MOU. No information is provided regarding anything else that bidders should include such as qualifications, relevant experience, personnel employed, etc. The due date for proposals is May 30, the bid opening date is June 2, and board acceptance for a two-year term that would begin on July 1, 2025 is June 23, 2024 [sic].

Of possible interest:

• The RFP makes no reference to the Whitewater Police Department; for example, the relationship between a possible outside entity and the department, such as communication of suspected crimes, is not addressed.
• The RFP addresses the concerns that the superintendent had identified. “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 agency would be required to provide an SRO for every school day regardless of the reason for absence of the assigned SRO(s). District personnel could report concerns and requests directly to the SRO.
• The SRO is required to be a “law enforcement officer,” which is defined by Wisconsin Statutes 164.01 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 is assumed that the SRO will have arrest powers in the district. The police chief previously told The Banner that he believes that any outside agency (other than the Walworth County Sheriff’s Department) would have to be deputized by the department.
• It is indicated that the “program cost includes budgeted wage, benefit, and payroll tax for SRO in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the _________ and the WPPA.” It would appear that this is a misstatement, unless WPD is the chosen agency, as WPPA presumably refers to the Whitewater Professional Police Association.
• The agreement carries over a section from the current one, wherein “program cost shall be shared by the ________ and School District.” The retention of this statement appears to possibly imply that there may be an ongoing expectation from the district that the city (or another entity) would share in the cost of the SRO even if provided by an outside entity. Currently the district pays 60% of the cost of salary and benefits of the SRO, and the city, 40%.
• The city had proposed the possibility of placing a second SRO in the district, but the RFP only refers to a single SRO.
• It is unknown how the RFP has been advertised. It does not appear to have been posted to the WUSD website, and it does not appear to be included on websites where government entities typically post their RFPs.

Editor’s note: Minor corrections and revisions were made on 5/20/25 at 6:15 a.m.