Skip navigation.

Please Note: You are viewing the non-styled version of The Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Financing Student Success' website. Either your browser does not support Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) or it is disabled. We suggest upgrading your browser to the latest version of your favorite Internet browser.

State of Ohio | Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Financing Student Success

Committees

Operations and Efficiency Committee

November 25, 2003 Minutes

Committee members present were Chairman Walt Davis, Vice Chairman Dennis Woods, Richard Baker (for Jennifer Sheets), William Hartnett, James Mahoney, Barbara Sprague and David Varda. Task Force Chairman William Wilkins and member Barbara Shaner were also present. Chairman Davis called the meeting to order at approximately 10:10 a.m. Mr. Davis described the main purpose for the meeting, which was to see where there is consensus among Committee members and where there are further questions. Chairman Davis turned the meeting over to Susan Merryman, who facilitated the discussion.

Presentations:

The first issue considered by the Committee was Governance, which included 10 potential recommendations. Following are the 10 potential recommendations and the Committee's actions on each.

Governance

  1. Retain current law regarding removal of local school board members. Current law treats them the same as any other public official. Mr. Davis noted that some board members do things that are not unethical or illegal, but are questionable. For example, some board members have their own agendas, which may not be in the best interests of the school district overall. Mr. Varda stated that single-agenda board members are part of our democracy. Mr. Varda agreed with the recommendation to retain current law relative to the removal of local school board members. Barbara Sprague, James Mahoney, Representative Hartnett, Dennis Woods and Richard Baker also concurred. The consensus of the Committee was to retain current law, which treats local school board members the same as other public officials.
  2. Change current Ohio law to allow an entire local school board to be replaced with an appointed board. Committee members discussed whether current law already allows this, since Cleveland has an appointed board. Members were informed that Cleveland has an appointed board as a result of an act of the General Assembly that authorized it. Mr. Baker understands the motivation for this recommendation, but he is concerned about its impact on the democratic process. Representative Hartnett stated that he is not sure that the best people are always the appointees or that they are always appointed for the right reasons. He thinks that boards should still be elected. Mr. Woods agrees that we should retain elected boards, while recognizing that the appointed board in Cleveland has worked well. Mr. Baker thinks that the State Board of Education, which is composed of elected and appointed members, works well. The consensus of the Committee was to oppose this recommendation.
  3. School boards should not be allowed to tie administrators' compensation to teachers' compensation. Mr. Varda questioned whether this is not already illegal. Mr. Baker observed that tying a superintendent's salary to salaries of those in the bargaining unit is a bad idea. The consensus of the Committee was to defer action on this recommendation pending further research by staff.
  4. Local school board members should be required to participate in ethics training. Mr. Baker asked whether this is already a requirement. It is not, according to Mr. Varda. Mr. Woods thinks that this is a good idea. Representative Hartnett would not be opposed to this, but wondered how you would charge a board member with unethical conduct. He proposed that the recommendation call for legal and ethics training. Mr. Baker noted that the Ohio School Boards Association already provides training, but not many new board members take advantage of it. He feels that it does not work if the training is voluntary. Mr. Varda noted that other elected officials have requirements to take ethics training. The consensus of the Committee was to recommend that local school board members be required to participate in legal and ethics training.
  5. Neither the State Board should be given additional oversight or governance responsibilities. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to defer action on this recommendation until after the Ohio Department of Education completes its report on regionalization.
  6. Persons who are compensated as an employee or as a contractor by a school district, whether the district in which they work or reside, or a neighboring district, or whose spouse is so compensated, within the past 10 years, should be barred from seeking public office on that district's school board. Mr. Varda thinks that current ethics law covers this. He does not support this recommendation. Dennis Woods feels that good board members are hard to find, so he does not support this recommendation either. Walt Davis noted that David Locke (who was unable to attend the meeting but provided written comments on the potential recommendations to Chairman Davis) supported this recommendation. Mr. Davis thinks that some board work is invisible to the public, so he supports the recommendation. Representative Hartnett is not sure that transparency is always good. He does not agree with this recommendation. He noted that we need to have faith in the electorate. Mr. Baker observed that most electors have no idea who they are voting for when they vote for school board members, including members of the State Board of Education. The consensus of the Committee was to reject this recommendation.
  7. Convert to appointed boards, statewide. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to reject this recommendation.
  8. School boards having an odd number of members should have one member appointed by the city mayor or the county commissioners, and have the rest of the members elected in equal members every two years. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to reject this recommendation.
  9. Install term limits on school board members to two, four-year terms. Vice Chairman Woods expressed his opinion that term limits for local school board members are a bad idea. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to reject this recommendation.
  10. Establish minimum qualifications for school board members to include: at least a four-year college degree; at least four years work experience after college. There was general agreement among Committee members that this recommendation would preclude many qualified individuals from serving on local school boards. The consensus of the Committee was to reject this recommendation.

Regionalization

  1. The committee supports the creation of a Regional Education Delivery Center Board. Dennis Woods feels that the system needs to be flexible so that districts can get the services they need. It needs to be a combination of top-down and bottom-up. Mr. Baker stated that there does not appear to be a lot of consensus in the field on regionalization. Representative Hartnett agreed with Mr. Woods. Mr. Mahoney asked what the system would look like if we started from scratch. What should be the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Education? These need to be clarified. Mr. Wilkins noted that the Funding for Success Committee heard a presentation on November 24th from Dr. Richard Brandon in which Dr. Brandon noted that we need to distinguish between the allocation of funds and the deployment of funds. Deployment is mainly a district responsibility while allocation is the state's responsibility. Mr. Wilkins opined that if districts are doing well, the state should leave them alone. If they are not doing well the state should intervene. Mr. Wilkins stated that we cannot build a school funding formula that is so complex that we can deal with all issues, including how districts deploy their funds. Local districts should do this, unless there is a problem. If there is a problem the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) should intervene. For example, Mr. Wilkins noted that the state could place some requirements on how school districts spend their money. The Ohio Department of Education could require that some districts undergo performance audits.

    Mr. Baker asked at what point we should intervene. Mr. Mahoney feels that intervention is an appropriate role for ODE. Mr. Wilkins noted that Cleveland Municipal School District Chief Executive Officer Barbara Byrd-Bennett gave a very impressive presentation at the November 24th meeting of the Funding for Success Committee regarding Cleveland's accountability system. Mr. Wilkins feels that what Cleveland does could be a model for the state. Mr. Wilkins added that Cleveland would not have made the progress it has if the status quo had persisted.

    Mr. Mahoney feels that Roger Nehls really did a good job of defining the questions relative to regionalization. Mr. Baker feels that ODE has the capacity to intervene, but not to take over the operations of a school district. Mr. Woods noted that the number of school buildings needing intervention is likely to triple, so he feels that ODE does not have the capacity to intervene with so many buildings. Mr. Baker wants to focus intervention on the poorest performers. Mr. Varda noted that there is already a process underway. He agrees that roles need to be defined. Mr. Varda opined that ODE is already involved in this, so why should the Committee get in the middle of it right now? What value could the Committee add?

    Mr. Wilkins thinks that the issue is broader than just the consolidation of educational service centers (ESCs). He feels that the Committee could ask staff to map out the current structure. For example, where are the decision points relative to financing? He has asked staff to map out the decision points relative to financing and governance. Mr. Woods does not know what ODE would like for its role to be. Mr. Baker says that ODE needs to implement H.B. 95 and will have a better idea of its role after its field work is done. Mr. Davis asked what the Committee would like to say to the full Task Force regarding regionalization. Mr. Baker feels that we do not have anything to say at this point, other than that the study of regionalization is in process. Mr. Woods feels that we need to be forward looking. What would the Committee like for ODE's role to be? Mr. Wilkins observed that, at a minimum, the Committee should support the Department's efforts and urge them to look more broadly that just ESC consolidation as they pursue their charge. He feels that there should be accountability throughout the system. The focus on regionalization should be improved accountability, clarification of roles and the elimination of duplicate services. Mr. Wilkins stated that ODE needs to lay out a proposal for when and how they intervene. Mr. Woods wants a white paper on the current responsibilities and role of the Ohio Department of Education. The consensus of the Committee was to support the work of ODE as it develops recommendations relative to regionalization, while also encouraging ODE to take a broader look at this issue than simply the consolidation of ESCs. The Committee also urged the ODE to develop a proposal that spells out when and how it will intervene in the operations of school districts and recommended an end to the duplication of the delivery of duplicate services.

Performance Audits

  1. Performance audits should be required for all school districts on a regular cycle. Mr. Baker wants audits, but not for all school districts. He would like them done on a targeted basis. Mr. Woods feels that districts that are not performing should be audited. Mr. Davis feels that if all districts are audited, best practices would be discovered that could be disseminated to all. There could be more value in finding the things that are good, than in finding the things that are wrong. Mr. Mahoney feels that all districts should be audited to benefit from an external viewpoint. The consensus of the Committee was that all school districts should be audited on a regular cycle, with priority given to those with the greatest need.
  2. Performance audits should be required for additional school districts besides those in fiscal caution, watch or emergency. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to approve this recommendation.
  3. The Auditor of State should provide a document of best practices for school districts to access on the Internet. The consensus of the Committee was to approve this recommendation.
  4. The following practices already identified through performance audits should be legislatively mandated.
    1. Capital and preventive maintenance plans for each school district
    2. Standardized custodial and maintenance procedures
    3. Exploration of entering consortia for common business practices of the school district (e.g., purchasing, payroll, bus maintenance)
    4. Enrollment projections required on 5-year forecast
    5. Others? The consensus of the Committee was to reject this recommendation. Instead, the Committee agreed that the Ohio Department of Education should develop a recommendation on how to use the results of performance audits.
  5. The Auditor's Office in conjunction with the Ohio Department of Education should create a document of guidelines for effective collective bargaining practices. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to reject this recommendation.
  6. School districts should be able to request an initial audit on a "no fault" or non-attribution basis, so that there is zero risk of being criticized when the audit is voluntary. After a brief discussion, the consensus of the Committee was to accept this recommendation.
  7. Audits should include academic performance. The audits might be performed by ODE staff using Auditor's methods. Mr. Baker feels that this is getting into the area of responsibility of the local school district's administration. Mr. Woods also did not agree with this recommendation. The consensus of the Committee was to reject this recommendation.

Health Care

  1. Ohio should consider the statewide purchase of health care insurance for all public employees through a committee or a specific agency such as the Ohio Department of Administrative Services. Mr. Woods would like this issue to be put to rest, one way or another, whether it is on a statewide or a regional basis. Mr. Woods would like for staff to look at some providers and see if they think that they could ramp up to a statewide system. Mr. Woods is concerned that the Oregon system is mandatory. Mr. Varda feels that a statewide system would provide more continuity, so that there are not the spikes that we have currently. There could be one agency that would regulate the costs for all school districts. A statewide system would make health care insurance costs more predictable and manageable.
  2. Mr. Wilkins wants to focus just on school employees. Perhaps the state could start out with voluntary options, ranging from very generous, to middle-of-the-road, to bare-bones options. Mr. Wilkins opined that many school districts in Ohio have very rich programs that do not discourage utilization (100% of costs are paid by the employer). He feels that there must be some employee contribution. If there are enough enrollees, the state could contract with a third party to administer the program and save money. Mr. Wilkins also observed that it would be very difficult to find a statewide health care provider. The providers should be local. Mr. Wilkins thinks that we should get some professional advice on what to do here. The consensus of the Committee is to recommend that we explore a regional or statewide health care insurance program for school employees in order to stabilize premiums and generate economies of scale. There was also a consensus on the Committee that Ohio should retain its system of local health care providers.

The Committee spent the rest of the meeting discussing the Committee's report to the full Task Force on December 18th. Mr. Wilkins said that details will be spelled out after the Revenue and Taxation Committee meets on December 2nd. Mr. Davis noted that what the Committee reports to the Task Force does not all need to be recommendations. We could also include what else needs to be done. Mr. Davis noted that, based on the Committee's list of discussion topics, there are still some aspects of centralization that need to be examined. Mr. Davis opined that the major part of unfinished business for the Committee is teacher compensation and related issues. He noted that many of the Committee's discussion topics had already been addressed by the Governor's Commission on Teaching Success. Mr. Davis noted that the elimination of tenure was not addressed by the Teaching Success Commission. Mr. Varda does not understand why the Committee would pursue this. Mr. Davis responded that parents and administrators in his area of the state feel that teacher tenure is a big problem. Representative Hartnett noted that school districts can fire tenured teachers if they really want to. Mr. Woods noted that getting rid of tenured teachers can be accomplished, but it is time-consuming and costly. Mr. Wilkins feels that the seniority system is a bigger problem than tenure. He feels that, because of the seniority system, the most experienced teachers are not in the classrooms that have the greatest need. The consensus of the Committee was that further Committee discussion was necessary relative to the issues of teacher compensation and working conditions.

Chairman Davis adjourned the Committee at 2:00 p.m.



* To view PDF files, download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader.


THE FINAL REPORT
Governor Taft reading with a student.