Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses joining Fair School Funding action, asks staff for recommendation before June meeting
Summary
At a Fremont City School Board meeting, a board member outlined an opportunity for the district to sign a letter and consider joining a statewide legal action tied to the Fair School Funding Plan; the board agreed to research the proposal and return with a recommendation and possible resolution at the June meeting.
Board member Don told the Fremont City School Board about an offer circulated through the Ohio School Boards Association that would allow districts — as individual entities, not acting as a board — to sign a letter supporting the Fair School Funding Plan and to join a coordinated legal action if they choose.
The board member said the outreach came with sample language and a low-per-student participation fee, and urged trustees to study the matter before the next regular meeting. “We would be committing, committing to a lawsuit. 300 of the 600 and some school districts in Ohio are participating in that now,” Don said.
The nut graf: the Fair School Funding Plan and possible lawsuit are connected to ongoing state budget negotiations and could affect how much state funding Fremont City receives; the board asked staff to return with more information and a draft resolution so the board can tell legislators where it stands.
Discussion details and next steps: Don said the packet from OSBA included a sample resolution the board could adopt and that the board could also consider individual signatures on a letter in support. He recommended the board and administration research whether to: (1) adopt a resolution supporting the Fair School Funding Plan and (2) participate in the coordinated legal action, and to report back at the June 9 meeting with a recommendation.
Budget and cost clarifications were discussed during the exchange. The transcript shows a correction and some inconsistent figures about the per‑student cost: an initial per‑student figure of $2 was mentioned; board members later noted differing estimates and asked staff to confirm the exact cost and financial ramifications before any commitment. The board did not take a formal vote to join the lawsuit; it directed staff to investigate and return with a recommendation and potential resolution language.
Broader legislative context: Don summarized topics raised in an OSBA legislative webinar, including the state fair‑funding formula, a proposed 30% carryover rule, and bills under consideration at the statehouse. He listed examples discussed in the webinar: Senate Bill 158 (banning student cellphones in some contexts), House Bill 114 (uniform kindergarten entry date proposals), and House Bill 273 (a proposal referenced in the webinar that would affect classification of farmland/property tax treatment). He noted that senators appeared to reject the house approach to the funding formula, sending budget details back into negotiation.
The board did not adopt a position at the meeting. Trustees asked staff to prepare cost estimates and a draft resolution to bring back at the next meeting so the board can decide whether to sign the letter or join any legal action.
Ending: The board scheduled follow-up work: staff will gather the detailed cost, legal and fiscal implications and return with a recommendation and sample resolution for the June meeting.
