Parents, teachers and students press board over cuts, transparency and a contested communications hire

More than two dozen community members — teachers, parents, students and union representatives — spoke during both public‑comment periods at the Feb. 26 Lorain City Schools board meeting, urging the board to protect services and demanding clearer information about staffing decisions.

Aaron Knapp, who identified himself as a parent, questioned the transparency and documentation around the district's hire for director of communications and community relations. "Is the district...maintaining complete documentation on the hiring process, including the scoring, evaluation criteria, and funding justification?" Knapp asked, adding that he had obtained emails that raised concerns about discussion of hiring matters by email. He said his biggest worry was whether the public can independently verify the fairness of the process under Ohio law.

Several commenters raised related concerns. A community member who identified as Kyle Zapp criticized the district's public relations materials and played a short clip he said had been posted publicly; his remarks referenced the term "NepoBabies" and criticized the hire as out of step with local culture. "Why did we bring in somebody that is just turning us into a bland sandwich?" Zapp said.

Teachers and counselors warned that cuts to counseling positions and itinerant staff would worsen student mental‑health outcomes and reduce services for high‑need students. A middle‑school teacher said adding 10 students per class will meaningfully increase anxiety and self‑harm risks for vulnerable students; a school counselor (Bailey Wallen) and others asked for clearer detail about which positions would be cut and how staff would be notified.

The president of the Lorraine Education Association, Julie Garcia, read announcements about an LEA scholarship fundraiser but also took questions from the board about substitute pay and coverage. Multiple speakers said the district's online attachments and reductions tables were hard to find (a wrong QR code was mentioned), and asked the board to make the reduction tables and union breakouts available and mobile‑friendly.

Response from the dais was limited to apologies for presentation or posting errors and assurances that attachments are part of the board agenda and would be redistributed; the agency official committed to look into bilingual access and to post survey results and details online.

What happens next: public speakers urged the board to consider community feedback before finalizing cuts and to show voters precisely what levy funds would support if the May ballot measure passes.