Ohio Supreme Court hears arguments in Youngstown School Board case against the state

The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Youngstown Board of Education's appeal against the Ohio Department of Education on Wednesday morning. Held in an off-site session at Montpelier High School in northwestern Ohio, the main argument hinges on whether the passage of House Bill 70 in 2015 violated the three-reading rule, making it unconstitutional. House Bill 70, which allowed for the state takeover of Youngstown, Lorain and East Cleveland schools, was amended from its original form in the Senate. The amendment took a 10-page bill regarding wraparound services for struggling districts and turned it into an almost 70-page bill outlining the current process for taking over a failing school district. The amendment was introduced and passed within 12 hours — prompting the bill's original sponsors to withdraw their support — and was signed into law by then-Gov. John Kasich. Youngstown Board of Education filed its initial lawsuit in 2015, appealing lower court rulings on the constitutionality of the bill all the way to the state Supreme Court, which agreed to take the case last fall. The board's lawyer, Charles Oldfield, argued Wednesday the intent of the amendment was unconstitutional, stripping local school boards of their power and avoiding public debate. Justice Maureen O'Connor questioned if the school board really had lost all power, as the law doesn't preclude it from working with the CEO and it still can immerse itself in the daily operations of the district and make suggestions to the CEO. Oldfield said the CEO has top-down power, with little incentive to work with the local board. While the board has the ability to make suggestions, he argued it has lost its ability to implement its own policies. The state's lawyer, Benjamin Flowers, said there was debate and notice of the amendment, given the prevalence of social media in 2015 as compared to the when the three-reading provision was passed. He also argued the law maintained one common purpose — to improve failing school districts — so the amendment did not require three new readings. When questioned by Justice Melody Stewart why co-sponsors withdrew support if there was no vital change to the law, Flowers said there is no rule stating a vital change happens if sponsors withdraw their support. In the midst of court proceedings, several bills have been introduced to remedy problems brought on by the current state takeover process. These include House Bill 154, which has stalled in the Senate Education Committee. The state and the three school districts under its control now must wait for a decision from the Ohio Supreme Court. Contact Carissa Woytach at 329-7245 or cwoytach@chroniclet.com.