Transportation Update: Responding to Transportation Complaints Through TEM System

Transportation Update: Responding to Transportation Complaints Through TEM System

by | Feb 19, 2026 | Transportation

The ODEW has changed the way it is administering transportation complaints to require districts to respond through an electronic system called TEM (transportation enforcement management).

According to the ODEW, when a person submits a complaint about a school district transportation issue to the Department, the District will be notified by email that a complaint has been filed and that the District needs to log in to the electronic TEM system to review the complaint. The District will select if it disagrees with the complaint, and all responses must also be entered into the TEM system.

Once a complaint is received, a district should promptly log in to the system to review the complaint, as the District only has five calendar days to respond. The District may include any supporting documentation with its response by uploading those items into the system.

It is important for the District’s response to cover all the issues raised in the complaint, as there are no other opportunities to respond or appeal, unless additional documentation is requested by the investigator.

Once the response is submitted through TEM, an investigator will review and if necessary, seek additional documentation, also through the TEM system. The District will receive an email if additional information is being requested, and must log in to the system to review the request and submit its supplemental response.

The investigator has forty-five calendar days to issue a determination on the complaint. Districts will be notified of the results through email. If a funding deduction is part of the determination, the result will also be sent to the Office of Budget and School Funding for further action.

As a refresher, districts could be found noncompliant based on a complaint if the complaint alleges that for five consecutive days or ten days throughout the year, district transportation arrived more than 30 minutes late to school or are picked up the student more than 30 minutes after school has ended, if no transportation arrives at all, or if the district is noncompliant with “any other transportation requirements in 3327 of the Revised Code.” (R.C. 3327.021)

The enforcement process currently provides that a complaint that is found valid will require the District to develop a corrective action plan for the first occasion of noncompliance within a week. The second, third, and fourth instances of noncompliance allow ODEW to withhold 25% of the District’s daily payment for student transportation funding for each day of determined noncompliance. The fifth instance of noncompliance allows the ODEW to withhold 100% of daily student transportation funding “until the department determines that the district is no longer out of compliance.”

ODEW has published a PowerPoint formatted guide to using the TEM system for complaint responses.

What this Means for Schools:

After conversion to the DRIVE system, schools should ensure  that transportation staff and administration understand the process for response to TEM complaints, including strict compliance with any response deadlines. Since schools may only have one opportunity to explain their action and position, responses must be thorough and decisions well documented.

 

 

 

 

Career Tech Centers Set to Lose Millions Following Property Tax Reforms

Career Tech Centers Set to Lose Millions Following Property Tax Reforms

by | Feb 19, 2026 | General

Property tax reform has been top of mind for legislators for the past few years, and school districts have anxiously followed legislative efforts. There were initial promises from legislators that career technical education programs might be insulated from property tax law changes. However, such assurances are nowhere to be seen in the final versions of the new laws set to take effect this year. As a result, Joint Vocational School Districts (“JVSDs”) are set to lose millions in funding over the next few years.

This is largely the result of new caps put into place to limit increases in property taxes overtime. Property taxes are a primary source of funding for taxing authorities, which include JVSDs.Prior to the passage of recent laws, JVSDs generally experienced an increase in revenue as property value increased over time. However, HB 186 has capped revenue growth to the rate of inflation for JVSDs at the two-mill floor. Under HB 186 alone, some industry groups are projecting nearly $240 million in losses for JVSDs across the state between tax years 2025 and 2027.

HB 129, which changes how the twenty and two-mill floors are calculated, and HB 335 which limits inside millage growth to the rate of inflation, will also result in millions of lost revenues for schools across the state. Many JVSDs already have budgets in place based on previously forecasted increases in funding. By capping revenue growth, the state is effectively clawing back this money and hampering long-term planning and growth.

These reforms come at a time where demand for career technical education is at an all-time high, and the state is actively calling for expanding access. HB 33 dedicated $300 million to construction projects to expand and support career technical education programs across the state, and HB 96 mandates that all districts offer career technical education to 7th and 8th-grade students next year by eliminating waivers. But this loss in funding is almost certain to result in less student access, not more. With many programs already at capacity, any decrease in revenue will seriously limit a CTCs ability to provide the additional facilities and staff necessary for the type of expansion envisioned by the General Assembly.

A final analysis of these property tax reforms, including examples of how the new calculations will change revenue growth, has been provided by the Legislative Service Commission and can be accessed here: HB 186; HB 129; HB 335.

 

 

 

 

Overbreadth Argument Overruled: OSU Loses Appeal Over Public Records Request

Overbreadth Argument Overruled: OSU Loses Appeal Over Public Records Request

by | Feb 19, 2026 | Board Policy & Representation, General

Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2025-Ohio-5647

The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio ruled against the Ohio State University (OSU), demanding that emails from OSU President Walter Carter be released following a public records request. This decision affirmed a ruling from the Court of Claims after it was determined that the specific request for the President’s emails was not overbroad. A link to the full decision has been provided above.

The original public records request was issued in November 2024, demanding all emails to and from the OSU President’s email address and all text messages to and from his phone over an eleven-day period. OSU denied the request, arguing it was “improperly overbroad, voluminous, and did not ask for records with sufficient specificity.” The special master appointed to review the complaint recommended denying the request for the President’s text messages. He argued the request could have applied to multiple cell phone numbers and would include many private, personal communications that would not qualify as public records. But he concluded the request for the President’s emails was adequate. By referencing (1) a specific official, (2) a specific email account, and (3) a discrete period of eleven days, the request was “reasonably limited” in scope and “identified the records with reasonable clarity.”

The Ohio Supreme Court has previously held that the Public Records Act “does not contemplate that any individual has the right to a complete duplication of voluminous files kept by government agencies.” State ex rel. The Warren Newspapers v. Hutson, 1994-Ohio-5. And the court in this case found that requests for whole categories of records “without any limitation as to content or time period” can be denied. Citing to State ex rel. Zidonis v. Columbus State Community College, 2012-Ohio-4228. Under Ohio law, a public office may deny an ambiguous or overly broad request, or one that does not allow the public office to reasonably identify what public records are being requested. O.R.C. 149.43(B)(2). However, even if an overbroad request is correctly denied the public office must still provide an opportunity for the requester to revise the request “by informing the requester of the manner in which records are maintained by the public office and accessed in the ordinary course of the public office’s duties.” O.R.C. 149.43(B)(2). If a public office fails to provide this information to the requester, they lose the right to object to the request for being overbroad. State ex rel. Summers v. Fox, 2020-Ohio-5585.

In this case OSU insisted the request was improper for failing to identify the other communicating parties and not narrowing the request by subject matter. However, OSU did not indicate that the President’s emails were maintained by subject matter or identity of sender/recipient, and they conceded that they were able to identify all the records responsive to the request. OSU incorrectly believed that such information was “generally required” for every records request, and the university’s failure to provide context or specific facts behind their decision made their denial improper. The Court also denied OSU’s claim that the request sought the “duplication of an entire category” of records because the request for email correspondence from a single individual did not represent a “complete duplication” of OSU’s files.

OSU also asked the court to consider the reasonableness of the request considering the circumstances. Schaffer, the requester, had made over 1,000 public records requests to OSU in 2024 and was on track to do so again in 2025. A previous case in the Court of Claims ended with a recommendation for dismissal to keep Schaffer “from becoming a party to abuse of the public records laws.” Schaffer v. Sheets, 2025-Ohio-1007. While the court appeared sympathetic to OSU’s argument, the university failed to raise this issue at the Court of Claims, so it could not be considered on appeal.

What does this mean for your district? Public records requests are context-specific. The absence of the author, date, or search terms alone is not enough to declare the request overbroad as a matter of law. What matters is the public official’s ability to identify and locate the requested records. Even a broad request (all emails) can be reasonable if some other modifier is included (specific individual, short time frame, etc.). In some cases, it may be appropriate to ask for clarification in response to a large records request, but districts must be prepared to provide an adequate explanation for that decision. Denying a request because they failed to specify a subject, for example, would not be appropriate if your office does not organize its records by subject. Nor would it be appropriate to deny a seemingly broad request when the district is already aware of the specific records being requested.  

 

 

 

 

Federal Government Ends Its Legal Defense of No DEI Certification Policy

Federal Government Ends Its Legal Defense of No DEI Certification Policy

by | Feb 19, 2026 | General

The federal government has withdrawn its appeal of a federal court decision that blocked its attempt to withhold billions of dollars in education funding from schools and states that refused to certify they had no diversity and equity programs.

Earlier in 2025, a federal judge in Maryland ruled that the federal government failed to follow proper procedures and that the “Dear Colleague” letter, published by the U.S. Department of Education in February 2025, threatened educators’ free speech. The judge did not actually rule on the contents of the letters but opined that the manner in which the Department of Education changed its policies violated decision-making procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The federal government initially appealed the decision, but withdrew its appeal in January 2026; the federal court decision remains in effect.

Many schools and universities shuttered diversity, equity, and inclusion programs to comply with the now moot policy. Due to the federal court’s ruling halting this specific funding threat, this avenue to withhold funds is at least momentarily on hold.

What does this mean for your district? Many school advocates are regarding the end of this litigation as a victory for schools, who feared losing federal funding over programs that could be considered diversity, equity, or inclusion programs. While this specific approach has been reversed, the federal government continues to use other methods to move its agenda forward. It is unclear what will happen to the Title VI investigations the Department launched in March 2025, all of which are based on this “Dear Colleague” letter.  Even so, many schools and universities should still remain vigilant to avoid drawing attention with a program that might cause a direct investigation from the U.S.  Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.