Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Little Miami board rejects rejoining OSBA, agrees to pursue Neola policy review
Summary
After a two-hour debate about advocacy, costs and local control, the Little Miami School District Board of Education voted down a motion to rejoin the Ohio School Boards Association and approved pursuing a contract with Neola to handle district policy drafting and updates if pricing is acceptable.
The Little Miami School District Board of Education voted 2-3 on Jan. 28 to reject rejoining the Ohio School Boards Association and then voted 4-1 to pursue a contract with Neola to provide policy services if the price is acceptable.
The discussion drew presentations from OSBA representatives and a Neola representative, lengthy board debate and public comment. Regina Grice, board president, said the board was weighing advocacy and services before deciding how to proceed.
The vote matters because OSBA provides legal hotlines, policy maintenance and other services under the district—s current membership, while Neola provides only policy services, billed as a standalone contract. Kathy McFarland, an OSBA representative, told the board that OSBA—s legislative platform is set by member districts and that the association offers lobbying, legal hotlines and governance services. "You are doing exactly what great leadership teams do, make sure that they're making informed decisions," McFarland said during her presentation.
OSBA staff and board members described services the district currently receives as a member: a legal hotline used for policy and special-education questions, BoardDocs meeting/governance support at a membership discount, participation in a bond program and periodic policy updates. Mark Bobo, an OSBA staff member, said the district currently pays about $10,600 in OSBA dues and that the cost of comparable services without OSBA membership "would go up to $14,000 at least," not including loss of membership discounts tied to other vendor contracts.
Neola—s representative, Mark Barhorst, described Neola as a narrower vendor that focuses only on board policy. "Neola is different. OSBA, they do so many things. Neola, all we do is board policy," Barhorst said. He provided the board a written proposal with a one-time implementation price the company presented as $17,128; that proposal includes 32 hours of on-site orientation and drafting, two follow-up visits, up to eight travel visits, document processing and a digital publishing platform, according to his remarks.
Board members framed the choice along two axes: advocacy and perceived partisanship versus cost and services. David Wallace, a board member, said he objected to OSBA advocacy he viewed as working against parental-rights legislation in Columbus and told the board he would not support an organization that "participates in doing so." Other board members defended OSBA—s role in providing legal and operational support and warned that leaving OSBA could raise costs and reduce services, particularly for BoardDocs and bond-related assistance.
Public commenters were split. Some residents urged the board to keep OSBA membership for services and to preserve support for public education; others, including speakers from outside the district, urged the board to resist what they described as OSBA political advocacy and to adopt a more locally controlled vendor. Amanda Hollingsworth, a district resident, criticized one board member—s comments as privileging the views of parents with children in the district: "Mr. Wallace claims that his opinion should carry more weight than those of other board members because he does have children within the district," Hollingsworth said during public comment.
After discussion, the board voted on two separate motions. A motion to rejoin OSBA (to restore membership) failed on a 2-3 roll call. The subsequent motion to pursue Neola as the district—s policy vendor if pricing proved acceptable passed 4-1.
Board leaders said they will circulate final pricing and contract terms to members before a future meeting. Barhorst said he would follow up with a written proposal the next morning; OSBA staff said they would provide details about services and membership benefits. Several board members asked for additional cost detail and time to review vendor contracts before any final contract is signed.
The board asked that pricing and contract details be shared by email with board members and that any final contract not exceed the board—s procurement thresholds without explicit board approval.
Votes and next steps were scheduled for a future meeting after staff circulated quotes and contract language.
Ending: Board members said the choices would come down to how the district balances membership services and advocacy with the cost and the desire to retain local control over policy. The board directed staff to distribute Neola's proposal and to bring any final contract back to the board for approval, if the price and terms were deemed acceptable.
