UPDATE | Day 2 of Youngstown Plan hearing features state officials

COLUMBUS — Two state education officials were slated to testify during a hearing in Franklin County Common Pleas Court this morning, in defense of the Youngstown school plan OK'd by lawmakers earlier this year.

First up was Christopher Woolard, senior executive director at the Ohio Department of Education's Center for Accountability and Continuous Improvement, called as a witness by the state.

The defense planned to call two witnesses today, the second day of testimony in the case.

Earlier this morning, Judge Jenifer French ruled on motions from legal counsel about exhibits that would be included as part of the official court record.

On the stand, Woolard reviewed state-issued report cards for the Youngstown City School District, which has posted failing scores for more than a decade.

Tuesday's daylong session included testimony from the Youngstown school board president, several Democratic state lawmakers, union group representatives and others, brought forth at the request of the plaintiffs in the case, who hope to convince the court that the state law changes OK'd earlier this year were improper and unconstitutional.

Today's testimony is to include appearances by witnesses for the state, which counters that HB 70 and the Youngstown plan amendment were appropriately OK'd by lawmakers and signed into law.

HB 70, which was passed by lawmakers and signed into law earlier this year, requires the creation of a new academic distress commission and the appointment of a chief executive officer to oversee the school district. The latter will have authority to replace school administrators and staff and close schools.

The local school board, Youngstown-area lawmakers and others were not involved in the development of the legislation, which was kept under wraps until the day lawmakers OK'd the amendment.

The school district, teachers and school employee unions and a local resident subsequently filed suit and are seeking an injunction to keep the law changes from taking effect next month.

Plaintiffs argued in court filings that the legislation is unconstitutional, eliminating the power of an elected school board and allowing "an unelected CEO to eliminate every school within a city school district, thus eliminating the right for electors in a city school district to determine the organization and number of members of a city school district board of education."

Legal counsel for the state argued in court filings that the law changes were proper, calling the lawsuit "little more than a thinly disguised effort to re-argue the policy merits of HB 70, a question for the general assembly, not this court."

They added, "Having lost the legislative battle, plaintiffs now conjure constitutional claims where none exist."

For the complete story, read Thursday's Vindicator and Vindy.com