Show us the 2007/2008 Letter of Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding so we know how many SROs we now should have....

So, the sheriff funds School Resource Officers (SRO’s) for 22 positions. He loses patrol deputies, which has its own funding, and replaces them with 11 to 12 (we don’t know?) SRO’s.

Did the funding for the SRO’s go away? Let’s say the sheriff’s reply is he used the SRO money to pay the deputies he transferred from the program. If this were to be his claim, what happened to the money allocated to the 11 or 12 who left patrol?

Shell game indeed.

This would be a great question for our counties CFO, our finance director Bennett. Aside from the fact his accounting is a joke to begin with, the fact he is head of the Blount GOP lets you know it’s a question that will never be asked.

Thank goodness we at least have the hard hitting questioning of Commissioner Samples;

"If you get this money, will there be a least one SRO in each school?" Commission Vice Chairman Steve Samples asked.
"Yes," Berrong said.

Haven’t we heard this before? Like every time the sheriff comes up to the ATM known as the courthouse in regard to this subject.

Somewhere in the early 90’s, some disturbed elementary kid takes gun to Montvale school. There is a standoff that the school principal handled without incident.

This is the premise for wasting millions of dollars in the years since and decades to follow? As far as Blount’s bad investments go, and there are many, the SRO program has to rank near the top. To arm teachers who would be willing to go through safety/security training would cost a fraction of what the Sheriff is costing taxpayers. Between our teachers and BCSO, who do you trust more these days?

But like always, this is about the kids, or at least that’s what the local Republican machine would tell you. Unless it’s a kid, or this case an unborn child, that a Democrat is trying to take care of; (link...) Then it’s just a waste of money.

Should not the bigger question be, “Do we really need SRO’s?”

Lester