Morrow, Oh. – More than four years after a Little Miami neighborhood petitioned to be transferred to Kings Local Schools, a judge has reversed the Ohio Board of Education’s decision permitting the transfer.
Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Charles A. Schneider rendered a decision last month on the case of Little Miami Local Schools vs. the Ohio State Board of Education, finding that the state board’s decision to allow the transfer of 558 homes in the Miami Bluffs subdivision was “not supported by substantial, reliable and probative evidence.”
Schneider’s decision brings to a close a long and convoluted story that began in March 2011. At that time, more than 450 homeowners in two of the three sections of Miami Bluffs in Hamilton Township submitted a petition to the Little Miami board asking that their properties be transferred to Kings. Little Miami had entered fiscal emergency in July 2010, and had undergone substantial cuts to staff and programming. The homeowners cited numerous reasons for the request, including the repeated failure of Little Miami levies, unequal educational offerings, closer proximity to Kings and high pay-to-play fees at Little Miami.
The Little Miami Board of Education denied the request, stating that it stood to lose significant state funding for the approximately 80 students who lived in Miami Bluffs and more than $1 million in tax revenue. Around that time, the Kings board passed a resolution expressing its intent to decline any school district transfers from adjoining districts.
Representatives from Miami Bluffs decided then to appeal to the Ohio Board of Education, asking them overturn Little Miami’s denial of the transfer. On May 16, 2012, a hearing officer appointed by the state board heard testimony from three Miami Bluffs residents, Little Miami Superintendent Greg Power, Little Miami Treasurer Terry Gonda, and then-Kings Superintendent Valerie Browning. Attorneys from all sides also submitted evidence supporting their cases. One month later, the hearing officer returned her decision, in which she recommended denying the transfer.
Her recommendation then went before the State Board of Education on Sept. 27, 2012. That day, the state board voted 12-7 to reject the recommendation of its own officer and approve the transfer. The following week, Little Miami filed an appeal with Franklin County Common Pleas Court to prevent the transfer of Miami Bluffs to Kings, and a hearing was set for Dec. 31, 2012.
After sifting through all of the testimony and evidence, Judge Schneider wrote last month that the Ohio Board of Education should have followed its own officer’s recommendation.
“Clearly, the Board’s decision completely ignored the extensive evidence regarding the financial impact of the transfer, and its finding that the financial effects on Little Miami was not a reason to deny the transfer was not supported by substantial, reliable and probative evidence,” he wrote. “The hearing officer’s findings of fact concerning the financial impact of the proposed transfer on the Little Miami School District should have been adopted.”
He also pointed out that the State Board of Education appeared to have tried to retroactively apply a quickly-amended Ohio Administrative Code, in order to justify its approval of the transfer.
“The Board of Education’s express reliance on amended Ohio Adm. Code 3301-89-03(B)(11), which was not effective until March 24, 2012, was improper because the petition for transfer in this appeal was filed on October 18, 2011, prior to the effective date of the amended regulations,” he wrote. “As a result, it could not be applied retroactively to the homeowner’s March 2011 petition for transfer of the Miami Bluffs subdivision and Adena condominium complex from the Little Miami Local School District to the neighboring Kings Local School District . . . [the] Board of Education’s resolution was not in accordance with law.”
After working through this issue for more than four years, Superintendent Power said he was grateful for the judge’s decision.
“We now feel vindicated in fighting the State Board’s decision, which seemed to us to be capricious and did not appear to be in the best interest of either district,” he said. “We always understood the residents’ rights to make their request, but we felt it was imperative to fight this decision that would have meant the loss of significant operating dollars to a district that is still recovering.”
