Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers, union leaders and parents press board to swap earned‑income tax for property levy
Summary
Union leaders, teachers and dozens of parents told the board to rescind the earned‑income tax and instead ask voters for a property‑tax levy, citing fairness, a history of property‑tax support and concern that the income tax would hit wage earners hardest.
Dozens of public speakers at the Cincinnati Public Schools board meeting on Aug. 3 urged the board to rescind its recent decision to place a 0.75% earned‑income tax on the ballot and to return to a property‑tax approach with more time for public education and campaigning.
Emily Bell, who identified herself as president of ASME Local 232, told the board, "Please believe in our children," and asked that the earlier vote be rescinded and a property tax levy be placed on the ballot. Clayton Adams of the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers asked why the board delayed a levy decision and why leaders concluded an earned‑income tax would be more palatable than a property tax. "Teachers are the experts," Adams said, arguing for partnership rather than unilateral decision‑making.
Several union and labor leaders were explicit in opposing the earned‑income structure. Brian Griffin of the Cincinnati AFL‑CIO argued the earned‑income plan would "ask the paychecks" while leaving property owners and investors untouched: "The wage takes the hit, the wealth walks free." Michelle Dunn, with levy experience, described the last‑minute push for an income tax as part of a "privatization playbook" that risks weakening the district.
Parents and school staff who spoke supported a property levy for practical reasons. Jillian Whitaker, a CPS teacher and property owner, said 90 days is not sufficient to educate voters about a fundamental funding change and urged the board to "honor that history" of property‑tax support. Others — including school social workers, coaches and parents — described cuts to programs, rising class sizes, and threats to athletics and social‑work positions if new funding is not secured.
Speakers also asked for clearer public information and a timeline. Several asked the board to commit to a transparent spending plan for any new money so voters know what investments will be made in instruction, facilities and student supports.
