Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Student Services topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Big Walnut board declines proposed Sentaro behavioral-services contract after questions about scope and capacity

Big Walnut Local School District Board of Education · July 25, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A motion to approve a contract with Sentaro for supplemental behavioral services (three days per week) failed after board members raised concerns about service duration, alternatives, in‑district capacity and contract language that may exceed statutory authority.

The Big Walnut Local School District board voted down a proposed contract with Sentaro to provide additional behavioral services for referred students.

The administration presented a recommendation to approve a Sentaro contract that would provide additional behavioral support three days per week, supplementing no‑cost prevention services now offered through a Delaware/Morrow County grant. The board had postponed action on the item at a prior meeting.

Board members asked for alternatives and clarifications during discussion. Staff said Sentaro had provided short‑term, emergency evaluations in the past and that families sometimes transitioned from Sentaro to longer-term providers such as Guidestone or Nationwide Children’s Hospital depending on need and insurance; the board was told Ohio State Medical Center is another provider some districts use. The number of students who would receive services under the proposed contract was not specified in the presentation; several board members asked the administration to provide a written list of current counselors, nurses, social workers and other mental-health staff to clarify in‑district capacity.

One board member flagged contract language that, in their view, appeared to promise powers beyond what the board may grant under statute, saying the district is a "creature of statute" and cannot delegate authorities the law does not permit. That wording was raised as a condition to approval.

When the board took a voice roll call, the transcript records four 'No' responses (Mrs. Graciosi, Mr. Crowell, Mr. Duffy and Mrs. Nicks) and the motion failed.

The board did not approve the contract during the meeting; staff indicated other provider options exist and that more information about service counts, start times and cost estimates could be gathered for future consideration.