43
Merits and flaws of Youngstown Plan debated
By Marc Kovac
COLUMBUS
Legal counsel for the Youngstown school board and teachers union asked an appeals court to stop a new academic distress commission from moving forward until a legal challenge to the state law that created it is fully considered.
Charlie Oldfield, the attorney representing the appellants, told a three-judge panel of the 10th District Court of Appeals on Thursday that time is of the essence in the case, given that the new academic distress commission had its first session Wednesday night, with plans to name a new school district chief executive officer by early June.
“Things are going to start moving very rapidly,” Oldfield said. “Once these things start happening, we’re not going to be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube. [The new CEO] can close schools, he can hire and fire, he can change curriculum, and it’s going to forever irreparably harm not only my client but the students in the school district.”
Appellate Judges William Klatt, Susan Brown and Jennifer Brunner are considering whether to reverse a trial judge’s October decision to reject a request for a preliminary injunction, postponing the effective date of a new state law shifting administrative authority over the Youngstown district to an appointed CEO.
Franklin County Judge Jenifer French ruled the plaintiffs in the case were not likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that HB 70, also called the Youngstown Plan, was unconstitutional.
The legislation, passed by lawmakers and signed into law last year, requires the creation of a new academic distress commission and the appointment of a CEO to oversee long-failing school districts.
The Youngstown school district initially is affected by the bill, though similarly situated districts would come under the new requirements in the future.
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 final plan.
The school district, teachers and school employee unions and a local resident subsequently filed suit. A trial in the case is scheduled for later this year.
During a two-day hearing last September, legal counsel for the district and teachers union asked for an injunction to delay the new commission.
Plaintiffs argued in court filings 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.”
They also said the amended HB 70 was not subject to the required three readings in the Legislature and was thus not properly enacted.
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.”
Both sides reiterated those positions before the 10th District Court of Appeals panel, with each allotted about 15 minutes to make their case and answer questions from the judges.
Oldfield focused on the requirement that legislation be read on three separate occasions before passage. Gov. John Kasich’s administration, the head of the Ohio Department of Education at the time, Republican lawmakers and a group of Youngstown leaders, Oldfield said, developed the Youngstown Plan behind closed doors, added it to another bill and moved it through a Senate committee and both chambers of the Legislature in a day.
The Youngstown amendment substantially changed the purpose of the original bill, Oldfield said. The original version provided discretionary programming options that schools could implement; the amended version of HB 70 included mandates for Youngstown and similarly situated districts.
But Judge Klatt said the overarching purpose of the bill, dealing with failing school districts, did not change, and he noted past court precedent and the hesitancy of judges to mingle in the legislative process.
Douglas Cole, legal counsel for the state, said the legislation was subject to three readings and was properly passed.
“Ten years of failing schools,” he said of the Youngstown district. “This has been a failing school district for so long. ... This isn’t a situation where the status quo is acceptable. ... The academic distress commission is designed to bring in new leadership into the school system and to change the reality in the Youngstown City Schools.”
The appeals court judges’ decision on the injunction issue could be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.