The Springfield City School Committee on a unanimous roll call vote approved a 45-day extension of the current interdepartmental memorandum of understanding between Springfield Public Schools and the Springfield Police Department that governs police access to school surveillance cameras.

Superintendent Dr. Dennal told the committee that a subcommittee held multiple community input sessions where students, family members and other community participants offered “amazing, thoughtful, insightful” suggestions that the district intends to work into the MOU language. The superintendent said the district’s new attorneys have begun reviewing the existing agreement and will present recommended changes to the legislative and contract subcommittee in the coming weeks.

Miss Monroe Naylor moved the extension; Mister Collins seconded. The clerk conducted a roll call in which Monroe Naylor, Mister Collins, Miss Gresham, Miss Hurst, Attorney Murphy, Mister Gonzales and Mayor Sarno all voted yes. Mayor Sarno announced the motion passed.

Vice Chair Gonzales said he supports considering a longer term for the agreement and said he had publicly advocated for a five-year term; he acknowledged the current agreement length is three years. Attorney Melissa Murray clarified during the meeting that the item is an MOU (memorandum of understanding) and, as presented, does not carry a financial implication.

The committee and staff described the extension as a stopgap measure to prevent the existing agreement from lapsing while attorneys incorporate community feedback. Superintendent Dr. Dennal said she expects a legislative and contract subcommittee to review proposed language and that the full committee could act as soon as the Jan. 23 meeting, though the extension authorizes up to 45 days of continued operation if more time is needed.

Community engagement and student input were emphasized repeatedly; the superintendent said suggestions from subcommittee sessions are being forwarded to attorneys for incorporation into the MOU text. Committee members asked for clarity on the lapse date for the existing agreement; staff said it would lapse in a few days (recorded in the meeting as Jan. 10).

The committee took no change to the substance of the agreement at the meeting beyond approving the time-limited extension and directing review by the legislative and contract subcommittee and legal counsel.