In the case Youngstown City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. State, 2020-Ohio-2903, 2020 Ohio LEXIS 1182, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the amended bill continued to relate to the creation of new methods for attempting to improve underperforming schools and thus the amendments did not vitally alter H.B. 70, despite the addition of significant substantive language to the bill. The school board fairly described H.B. 70 as allowing an academic-distress commission to remove nearly all the power and authority from a city school board and to place that authority in a chief executive officer under the circumstances contemplated by the law, but Ohio Const. art. VI, § 3 did not prohibit this action. The constitutional provision required that a city’s electors be able to decide the number of members of and the organization of a school board but did not require that any specific power or authority be vested in the school board.
In this case, plaintiff-school district challenged the constitutionality of Am. Sub .H.B. No. 70 authorizing school districts to create community learning centers, claiming the legislation had not met the Three Reading Rule, Art. II, Sec. 15(C), Ohio Constitution. The original legislation and amended final version involved the same general subject area of education and also the specific subject of improving under-performing schools; also, the legislation did not usurp the power of city school boards.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
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.