Decatur School Board approves program to arm teachers

The Messenger
By Brian Knox 
May 16, 2023

The Decatur School Board Monday approved a program that would allow authorized staff to carry guns in school. However, a question remains about whether the action potentially violated the Texas Open Meetings Act.

The board ultimately voted 6-1 to implement the Guardian Program in the district, which allows staff members who have undergone training to carry a gun for use in situations such as active shooter incidents.

The vote came during action item discussion on sending a survey to parents to gauge support for having armed teachers in the district. The Guardian and similar Marshal Program was listed later on the agenda as a “discussion” item.

Decatur ISD’s May 15 school board meeting agenda listed these items for action and discussion. 
​​​​​​​

Superintendent Chad Jones initially recommended sending out the parent survey following the recommendation of the district’s safety and security committee. The survey would have been sent out on Tuesday (May 16) and be open for a week. A special meeting would have been called for next week to review the survey results and hear from representatives of the different security programs.

However, the board decided against the parent survey and ultimately supported taking immediate action to approve the Guardian Program.

That survey would have followed a recent staff survey, which showed 59 percent in favor of such a program and 41 percent against it. The survey also indicated that 35 staff members were willing to undergo the vetting process and required training.

Board member Scott Koehler questioned why the parent survey was not sent out at the same time as the staff survey. 

“To reach out to parents about the program when we aren’t sure if we have the staff members who want to carry (firearms), if we (do the survey), it’s kind of wasted time,” Jones said, adding that sending out the parent survey would not delay the implementation of the program for the 2023-24 school year.

Koehler said as part of the safety and security committee, he voted against sending out a survey to parents and staff.

“I want some action,” he said. “…Two of our school board members ran with this as part of (their platform). I believe their (margin of victory) matches the percentage in the (staff) survey.”

He was referring to newly elected board members Sandra Schneider in Place 3 (who received 60 percent of the vote) and Jeremy Duncan in Place 4 (who won with 50.2 percent).

TAKING OATHS — Recently elected Decatur ISD trustees Jeremy Duncan, Place 4, and (below) Sandra Schneider, Place 3, were sworn in before beginning their terms at the May 15 meeting. 
BRIAN KNOX/WCMESSENGER

Schneider echoed Koehler’s comments after discussion about if the board had sufficient input from the public on implementing the program.

“I think we did hear from the community. We heard from the community, and that included parents. I ran on security. I came up and I spoke about the Guardian Program (during public forum at last month’s meeting). I said we have to protect our kids. We have to do more than what we are doing. And I won by 60 percent. It was like a staple part of what I ran on. So we have heard. I’m a momma bear, and I will protect my kids, and I will protect your kids, if I’m in that role,” she said.

Board member Stan Shults appeared to be the only board member in favor of conducting the parent survey before making a decision.

“I’m personally not comfortable in moving forward with a program like that until we get buy-in by the parents. We talk about transparency, I think they should be involved in something that will directly affect their children,” he said.

Shults later made a motion to approve sending out the survey, but the motion died for lack of a second. He later cast the lone dissenting vote to implement the Guardian Program.

During public forum, Decatur Police Chief Delvon Campbell, who serves on the safety and security committee, advised against implementing a program that would arm teachers. He said it is good for rural districts that don’t have a nearby law enforcement agency but not for Decatur.

“The teachers in this district are nurturers. They love their kids. They are not killers. By putting a gun in the hand of teachers, that’s what you are asking them to do. If you’ve never been faced with that, you don’t know what that’s like,” Campbell said. “I have shared with some members of this board that I’ve had to do that myself. June 17, 2005, 4:30 in the morning, I took the life of another individual, protecting other officers in this city. Everyday I live with that. It was a just cause, and I was cleared by a grand jury, however I can vividly recall the moments of that morning every single day. That is what would happen in the event a teacher has to do the same thing.”

He concluded his remarks by expressing his fear that if an active shooter situation happened at Decatur, one of his officers might accidentally mistake an armed teacher for the shooter.

Board member Melonie Christian said she was concerned that the results of the parent survey may have differed from the staff survey. She then said that while she respected what Chief Campbell said, she would support the program.

“The world has changed so much in the last 10 years, that the time it takes for a person that is not totally with it to get in my building with a random gun, and I have children all around me, I’m going to do everything I possibly can to keep them safe. If that means standing in front of a gun, I would do that. If I had a trained person, extensively trained, familiar with guns, and they are in my building at that same time, I would rather have them with the gun than a crazy person with a gun,” she said.

Newly-elected board President Dylan Barnes asked how it would look in the context of transparency if the board went ahead with a decision without getting parent input.

“In my opinion, that’s not transparency,” Koehler replied. “Transparency is this discussion here, not back there (in closed session)….A survey, some people will want it, some people won’t. We were elected to make tough decisions, and we make decisions all the time without surveys.”

He added that these types of programs come with the recommendation of state officials like the governor and deal with issues of personal protection.

“We have a fundamental right to protect ourselves, and we are going to dictate that someone can’t protect themselves?” he said. “Taking away the right of a human in this country, I don’t think that’s my place. … I don’t need a survey, I’m ready.”

After several more minutes of discussion, and following Shults’ failed motion, Koehler made a motion “to activate the Guardian Plan.”

Jones said he was unsure if the board could vote on the item since it wasn’t listed as an action item on the agenda.

Koehler responded that Robert’s Rules of Order, the parliamentary procedure the board uses, allows a board member to make a motion on any listed agenda item.

Barnes reminded the board that they were considering the action item on the survey, and a special meeting could be called next week to take action on implementing the Guardian Program.

“Can we just go ahead and get a meeting scheduled to come back and take action so we don’t get an attorney involved and cost the district money?” Barnes said.

Koehler said they could, but if he received a second, they would be required to have discussion and a vote.

A few minutes later, Schneider seconded the motion after saying she was concerned that if a special meeting was called, not everyone would be able to “attend for a very important vote.”

Jones said it was his understanding in his 14 years as superintendent in talking with attorneys that only items listed as “action items” could be voted on.

“That’s not correct,” Koehler replied, again stating that Robert’s Rules of Order allowed the board to take action, later adding, “It’s black and white, guys.”

However, Attorney Bill Aleshire with the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, who the Messenger consults with on issues involving public information and open meetings law, said the board voting on items that appear to only be on the agenda for discussion is misleading to the public, adding that due to the distinction on the meeting notice between action and discussion items, a vote on a discussion item may not hold up in a lawsuit.

“They should not mislead voters by saying, via their meeting notice, that they will only discuss something, but then vote on it. A voter might decide not to attend the meeting or give input if they were only going to discuss, but not vote on the item. And the more controversial the item, the more careful they need to be about the public notice of the meeting,” he said.

“TOMA (Texas Open Meetings Act) does not require them to separate agenda items between discussion and voting items. TOMA only requires them to list the subject of their ‘deliberation’ which can include both discussion and voting. Thus, their unnecessary but misleading distinction on the meeting notice could cause them to have action taken on an item posted only for ‘discussion’ declared void by a court if a lawsuit was filed.”

He added that procedural matters like Robert’s Rules of Order do not trump the requirements of the statute.

Because approval of the Guardian Program was not listed as an action item on the agenda, and information about it was not listed in the board packet received by board members, details about how the program would work and how much it would cost the district were not immediately available.

The district confirmed Tuesday that it is consulting with the school district’s attorney to see if the motion and action taken Monday was legal.