Austintown schools headed toward an unconstitutionally high reliance on property tax

Austintown schools headed toward an unconstitutionally high reliance on property tax
EDITOR:
In the last several weeks, The Vindicator has published a series of articles focused on the state of schools and funding issues presently faced by parents and taxpayers of Austintown. Even as recently as last Wednesday, Austintown's Board of Education was considering the placement of two tax levies on the ballot for voting in May. One is a 4.9-mill and the other is a 7.3 mill operating levy. The aggregate of both operating levies exceeds a statutory 10-mill cap. Remember, too, that voters approved a bond issue in November 2003 to construct a $26 million middle school complex on Raccoon Road. That bond issue represents a 2.9 mill levy.
While not fortunate enough to participate in board President Michael Creatore's savings extravaganza meeting of Jan. 25, I have been able to sit down and digest Austintown's annual financial report. It is a disturbing indictment of a school district in as much trouble as some of the worst across our state. In doing a simple asset versus liability analysis, one can easily discern that our district's two long-term liabilities of more than $35 million present not just a significant challenge for our district, but almost an insurmountable challenge. Embedded in the middle of the report is this assessment: "The District faces serious challenges, which have financial impact and require voter approval." One challenge is the need for additional operating funds. In reflecting on the Jan. 25 meeting, all of us can now see the desperation on the part of our board. In as much as Creatore and fellow board members deny waving a "threat" of massive cuts over parents heads if these operating levies aren't passed, the actions of board members and the evidence speak for themselves.
Austintown doesn't have a monopoly on financial trouble. Other school districts are similarly situated. It is an issue that still has not been addressed adequately by our General Assembly as evidenced by a huge body of decisions and case law emanating from the first Supreme Court decision in DeRolph v. State of Ohio. Our highest court has already determined that the increased reliance of tax levies, as presently proposed by our Austintown school district, is an unconstitutional means of funding. Recently, I have spoken publicly quite a bit about our district's efficacy and the present state of our leadership at board and administrative levels. I am unimpressed with the direction our leaders are taking us.
HARRY C. TURNER III
Austintown
An outrageous opening
EDITOR:
Ohio uses the term "open enrollment" hoping that the public believes it is promoting competition between districts in order to improve education. In truth, it promotes competition for state and federal funds, leaving districts with only woefully inadequate local funding.
It's time to address the issue of open enrollment from a different perspective. While local superintendents crow about taking students from other districts, the "victim" districts are left to cope with decreased funding. The state of Ohio has perpetrated this outrageous system. In essence, school districts steal students from each other in order to keep themselves solvent.
When one district raids another in order toremain solvent, it seldom, if ever, mentions that the students were selected and other students are left behind. Selecting which students to accept smacks of elitism and demonstrates an outright disregard for all members of the neighboring school districts. Is this the attitude we want our schools to foster? Does this attitude reflect that of a democracy?
GEORGE TURCO
Struthers