To the editor:

Regarding last week’s letter to the editor — am I missing something, or did a retired but self-proclaiming combat-ready military veteran “volunteer” to come into the school with firearms and serve as a school resource officer even though he does not have law enforcement credentials? Worse, because the district did not take him up on his overzealous offer, he popped off a rash response calling the board of education foolhardy and said he can’t wait until his children graduate and get on out of here.

That type of behavior is the reason why the board of education proceeds cautiously with a major decision like the hiring of a school resource officer, let alone just letting a guy with a gun and an attitude do it for free. This is no time for knee-jerk reactions. There are other considerations: Costs/cuts or tax hikes, contractual obligation with a local police department and what the SRO’s duties would be other than just being at the ready for a school shooter.

Is a school resource officer the best or the only option for improving security? Maybe, but let’s put some thought into it and not hit the emotional hot button. And no, this is not a decision that should go to a county-wide referendum.

I commend school officials for being level headed. It’s totally unfair to suggest that the district does not care about the safety and well-being of its children because they can’t put an armed police officer (or someone who claims to be equal to the task) in the school fast enough. It’s irresponsible to accuse board members of being unsympathetic, insensitive or “living in a bubble” because they don’t want to make an immediate short-sighted decision.

Aaron Gifford

Cazenovia