Talawanda City board rejects proposal to add public-records and multiple IT positions after members ask for costs and narrower scope

The Talawanda City School District Board of Education on May 19 declined to add a part-time staff member to handle public-records requests and three IT positions after debate over costs, scope and whether a consultant might be preferable.

A Hanover Township resident, Annie Dittman, used the board's public comment period to press the district for transparency after a recent Google Docs "glitch." "What step was skipped? Please be transparent," Dittman said, asking who was responsible and whether a post-mortem review had been completed.

During the superintendent's report, the board considered a motion to hire one part-time, as-needed staff member to process public-records requests, one assistant IT director and two additional IT staff. The superintendent described increased demands from public-records requests, the district's one-to-one technology deployment and security concerns, and said having at least one IT person in each building would allow quicker in-person support rather than ticketing.

Board members raised several concerns before voting. Several asked for a breakdown of estimated costs for each position and for data on the number and complexity of public-records requests. One member suggested separating the public-records role from IT hires and returning with cost estimates and job-scope detail; another proposed hiring a short-term outside consultant or contractor to do a security assessment rather than creating multiple permanent positions immediately.

Board member Mead said he was sympathetic to the need for records and security staff but wanted clearer priorities and numbers: "I think I'm gonna want more detailed justification on what it is each of these people will do and the need for them." Board member Otto said he would vote no but asked for the item to be brought back with cost details and suggested an outside security review.

Supporters of the proposal argued that additional staff would reduce reliance on higher-cost attorney redaction services and speed responses. Staff described the proposed part-time public-records role as "as needed" (up to about 25 hours in heavier weeks) and said that initial in-house work could reduce attorney billable hours.

When the board voted, the motion failed. The vote recorded: Board member Otto: No; Board member Mead: No; Board member King: No; Board member Dr. Howard: No.

Why it matters: Public-records workload and IT security are operational priorities that affect how quickly the district responds to records requests, how classroom technology is supported and how the district defends against cyber incidents. Board members asked for more specific cost estimates, job descriptions, and the option of using short-term contracted expertise for cybersecurity.

Next steps: Board members asked staff to return with a separated proposal (public-records position distinct from IT hires), estimated costs, skills sought (particularly for cybersecurity roles), and data showing public-records volume and attorney costs to support a permanent hire decision.