In the case of Opinion No. 2017-023, the Ohio Attorney General found that, “[f]or the purpose of electing members of the governing board of an educational service center, the territory of the educational service center in whose territory a local school district is located does not change when the local school district enters an agreement under R.C. 3313.843 with the governing board.”
In order to fully understand the Attorney General’s opinion, it may be helpful to review the history of ESCs. ESCs were formerly known as “county school districts” with an oversight relationship with their local school districts. As a result, the Ohio General Assembly specified that the “territory of an educational service center [is comprised of] the territory of the local school district[s in the] county and any territory attached to the county for school purposes.” Opinion No. 2017-023.
Over time The Ohio General Assembly effected sweeping changes to the mission and function of ESCs. Specifically, the General Assembly removed ESC’s function in oversight over local school districts and restructured ESCs as service organizations based on contractual relationships with school district clients. See 2011 Am. Sub. H.B. 153. The General Assembly acknowledged this transformation by changing the name of county school districts to ESCs. Under current law, all school districts with an average daily membership (“ADM”) under 16,000 students – regardless of whether they are local, city, or exempted school districts – are required to enter into biennial service contracts with an ESC without regard to geographical limitations. See R.C. 3313.843(B).
This fundamental shift in ESC function – from an oversight role to a service role – created a question for some as to whether the biennial change in a school district’s service provider also effected a change in the territorial lines of the ESC. Indeed, one county prosecutor actually opined that “the precincts comprising [an] educational service center change when a [local] school district” enters a biennial service agreement under R.C. 3313.843 with a different ESC. If followed, this county prosecutor’s decision would have had a monumental impact on the electoral territory of ESCs. Essentially it would mean that the local school district’s biennial decision to terminate its agreement with an ESC would impact the electoral territory of ESCs and that, as ESCs lose or gain local districts through its R.C. 3313.843 biennial service agreements, ESC electoral territory would change.
The Ohio Attorney General rejected the county prosecutor’s opinion and, instead, concluded that the electoral territory of an ESC is effectively locked in place and does not change when the local school district enters a biennial agreement with an ESC under R.C. 3313.843.
To read this opinion, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.