Kent City Schools board discusses resolution opposing Ohio House Bill 42; legal review requested, vote deferred

A proposed resolution expressing opposition to Ohio House Bill 42 dominated discussion at the Kent City Schools Board of Education meeting on Feb. 17, as board members, administrators and members of the public weighed privacy concerns, potential administrative burdens and legal risks.

Supporters of the draft resolution told the board the bill — as described in the proposal — would require the Department of Education and workforce to collect and report individuals’ citizenship and immigration status and could function as an unfunded mandate for districts. “This would be devastating to immigrant families,” said Anne Reed, who read a prepared statement during public comment and urged the board to adopt a memorandum of opposition to House Bill 42. Public commenter Nancy Graham said schools must “stay separate with things like immigration enforcement and not be involved in sharing information that could get any of our children” exposed.

Board members who favor the resolution framed it as a protective step. One board member said the measure would add an “invasive” requirement and that organizations such as the Ohio School Boards Association and the Buckeye Association of School Administrators have already expressed opposition. Supporters argued a resolution is nonbinding but signals community concerns to lawmakers.

Administrators urged caution. Tom Larkin, the superintendent, said his primary concern is protecting the ability to keep staff, teachers and principals focused on instruction and shelter them from politicized distractions. “My concern is as a school administrator — the board acting and taking action on a political motion,” he said, noting the district serves more than 3,000 students and represents hundreds of staff. He and other administrators flagged the potential for increased administrative work and community responses if the board issues a public statement.

Board members discussed options including minor wording changes, inserting district names into the draft, and whether the district’s legal counsel should review the document. Several trustees said they would prefer the district’s attorney to vet the language and any legal implications before the board takes a vote. The board did not vote on the resolution at the Feb. 17 meeting; trustees agreed to send the draft to district counsel for review and to return the item as an action item at the next board meeting for potential adoption.

What happens next

The board president and administrators will transmit the draft resolution to the district attorney for legal review and will place the item on the agenda for the next board meeting as an action item. If the board approves a final version, the resolution would be an expression of the board’s position and not a change in district policy.