Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) has vetoed a $2.5 million grant proposal designed to fund gun-detection equipment for schools, labeling it a “pet project.” This veto was part of several line-item vetoes announced alongside the signing of a $50 billion state budget bill, according to the Associated Press.
The vetoed bill focused on acquiring gun surveillance systems from ZeroEyes, a company founded by military veterans in response to the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The tragic event resulted in 17 fatalities and 17 injuries, spurring the creation of advanced security solutions for schools.
Parson’s veto is reminiscent of Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s (D) decision in May to reject a similar $5 million grant proposal involving ZeroEyes. Both governors expressed concerns that the bills appeared to single out a specific vendor. Kelly highlighted the exclusivity the bill would grant to ZeroEyes, while Parson noted that the Missouri bill seemed tailored to a particular vendor’s platform.
In his explanation to the legislature, Parson stressed the importance of following established state purchasing laws, which mandate competitive bidding processes to ensure transparency and fairness. He argued against contracting directly with a specific vendor without exploring other potential options.
The initiative aimed to enhance school safety through advanced gun-detection technology, which supporters argue is crucial for preventing incidents like the Parkland shooting. However, the approach of securing a contract with a single vendor raised red flags about the fairness and competitiveness of the procurement process.
Parson’s decision has ignited a discussion on the most effective and equitable ways to improve school safety. Proponents of the bill assert that urgent measures are necessary to safeguard students, while detractors support the governor’s emphasis on proper procurement protocols.
This veto highlights the broader challenges in implementing safety initiatives within the constraints of public procurement laws. The debate continues on how best to balance the urgent need for enhanced school security with the principles of fair and transparent use of state funds.
