New Law on Youth Membership Organization Presentations Q&A

New Law on Youth Membership Organization Presentations Q&A

by | Nov 11, 2026 | General, Legislation

What is changing with youth organizations presenting in schools?

SB 19 enacted a new section of the law, R.C. 3313.476.  On September 23, 2026, the new law took effect that outlines the opportunities that youth member organizations have to access students in school.  

What is a youth membership organization?

The definition is limited.  It does not say any organization that offers youth membership options, but references only those listed in the Federal statutes.  The statute defines a “youth membership organization” as any of the following:

Civil Air Patrol

Future Farmers of America

Big Brothers-Big Sisters of America

Boys and Girls Clubs of America

Little League Baseball of America, Inc.,

Naval Sea Cadet Corps

 Boy Scouts of America

Girl Scouts of the United States of America

Therefore, you may limit the opportunity to only those organizations listed. 

May the listed organizations tell the school district when and how it wishes to present to students?

No.  The statute provides that upon a request by one of the listed organizations, the school district must provide at least one opportunity to “…at least one opportunity per school year for the representatives of the youth organization to provide displays on school property within the district for student recruitment, including informational flyers and the use of other existing digital communication channels.

When may the school district host the youth organization for its presentation?

The statute requires that any presentations occur during a time outside of instruction for a core curriculum subject. The school district retains the discretion of when in the school day it will provide the opportunity.

 How long does the youth organization have to present to students?

The statute limits the presentation to “up to ten consecutive minutes.” There is nothing in the statute that allows the youth organization to dictate when and how long it will speak, so the school district has discretion to determine how best to incorporate this new law into its current calendar and schedule for students.

Should the youth organizers on campus go through our visitor background checks?

Every school district should consider its policies on how visitors are allowed in buildings, if an ID check is required, if supervised access to students occurs, etc. Treatment similar to other supervised visitors in school buildings may be appropriate.

What else must the school district offer to the youth membership organization?

Once a year, school districts must allow the youth organization to provide flyers.  The timing and method of distribution is subject to the determination of the school.  The “use of other existing digital communication channels” would likely include a once a year email or software communication platforms for students.  School districts need not provide multiple access points, nor must they do a coordinated marketing campaign if suggested by the qualifying youth member organization. 

In the event a school district wishes to offer additional opportunities such as more than one communication avenue, that is permissible.

The minimum for communications required by statute is to ability have a display, provide flyers and an email is once per school year. School districts are not required to promote or recruit for the organizations.

What are some options for planning for the implementation of the new law?

First, there was no need to provide any access before the law went into effect. 

Second, school districts might consider adding these opportunities (which again, must be requested by the named organizations) into other existing planned programming, such as a wellness day, or other student assembly or lunchtime opportunities. 

Do we have to notify parents and may parents opt out?

Yes.  The law contains a parental notification requirement.  Parents must be notified of each group’s expected presentation, which means that the school district needs to obtain a summary of the expected speech content and the flyers or other digital communications that will be offered to students in advance.  Then, parents must have the opportunity to opt out of their student attending or listening to the expected presentation and materials.

Instead of keeping track of each individual organization, school districts might consider opting out of all youth membership organizations or opting in to all youth membership organization presentations. 

Should we update our policies?

Yes. The policy services have updated the relevant policies, and your district should adopt them as effective on September 23, 2026. You may wish to incorporate your district’s specific plans on these offerings, so some revision of the template policies or administrative guidelines may be in order.  Other policies will also remain in effect that should be followed governing other communications, displays on public property, visitors on campus, etc. Contact us if we can assist.

Ohio Appeal Court Holds Executive Session Is Not a “Blanket Shield” From Discovery

Ohio Appeal Court Holds Executive Session Is Not a “Blanket Shield” From Discovery

by | Nov 11, 2026 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Legislation

School board members and administrators often assume that discussions held in executive session are completely insulated from later disclosure. An August 2026 decision from Ohio’s Twelfth District Court of Appeals serves as an important reminder that the confidentiality of executive session discussions has limits, particularly when a public body is accused of violating Ohio’s Open Meetings Act. In Rosenhoffer v. Batavia, the court held that Ohio law does not create an absolute executive session privilege that automatically bars discovery regarding topics discussed during a closed session.

The case arose after Village of Batavia residents filed suit alleging that village council members entered executive session but then discussed topics that were not covered by the statutory exceptions permitting closed-door meetings. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought testimony regarding what occurred during the executive sessions. The village argued that executive-session discussions were protected from disclosure and sought a protective order. The trial court rejected that argument and ordered discovery to proceed, resulting in an appeal.

The Twelfth District affirmed the trial court’s central conclusion that Ohio law does not recognize a blanket executive session privilege. The court reasoned that if all executive-session discussions were categorically immune from discovery, litigants could never effectively challenge whether a public body had complied with the Open Meetings Act in the first place. As the court observed, such an interpretation would make it virtually impossible to determine whether officials discussed matters outside the topics authorized by statute.

The court also rejected the argument that Ohio ethics laws automatically prohibit current or former public officials from testifying about executive-session discussions. Instead, the court found that courts may compel testimony when necessary to evaluate Open Meetings Act claims as long as the testimony is limited to determining whether discussions strayed beyond the subjects authorized by the Open Meetings Act.

What does this means for your district?

While the case arose in a municipal context, the decision has significant implications for Ohio school boards. Boards frequently rely on executive session to discuss topics expressly authorized by the Open Meetings Act. If your Board’s compliance with the Open Meetings Act is challenged, a court may permit limited inquiry into what conversation occurred behind closed doors to determine whether the discussion stayed within the narrow statutory exceptions. School boards should continue to exercise discipline in executive session, ensuring that discussions remain closely tied to the purpose identified in the motion and authorized by Ohio law.

Changes to Ohio Law on Truancy, Chronic Absenteeism, and Absence Intervention in the 2026-2027 Operating Budget

Changes to Ohio Law on Truancy, Chronic Absenteeism, and Absence Intervention in the 2026-2027 Operating Budget

by | Nov 11, 2026 | General, Legislation, Student Education and Discipline

The Operating Budget enacted several changes to Ohio laws governing school policy on truancy, chronic absenteeism, and absence intervention. The likely fiscal effect of these reforms is that school spending will shift from compliance activities to prevention and intervention.

Grade Level Promotion

H.B. 96 removed the requirement that a school district not promote a student to the next grade level if the student has been truant for more than 10% of the required school days.

Filing a Truancy Complaint in Juvenile Court

The budget eliminated the timeline for school district attendance officers to file a complaint in juvenile court against a truant student. This includes a removal of the requirement that when a student’s absences persist after the school has made meaningful attempts to reengage the student, a school must file a complaint to juvenile court not later than 61 days after a plan was implemented by the absence intervention team.

The filing is now solely based on whether the student’s progress in improving attendance is satisfactory. Now, the Act requires a truancy complaint in juvenile court only if the school district makes a determination that the student’s progress in improving attendance is unsatisfactory. If the school determines that satisfactory progress has been made in this area, the attendance officer shall not file a complaint.

A complaint filed in juvenile court must allege that the child is an “unruly child for being a habitual truant” and that the parent or guardian has violated their duty to cause the child to be in school. The meaning of “habitual truant” remains unchanged, and still refers to a “student of compulsory school age who is absent without legitimate excuse . . . for 30 or more consecutive hours, 42 or more hours in one school month, or 72 or more hours in a school year.”

Driver Education Excused Absences

The Act allows for up to 8 hours of excused absence for a student if they are “absent from school for the sole purpose of attending a driver education course.” The student can be absent for up to two hours a day for no more than four days. These days may be consecutive or nonconsecutive. The student may not be released from a core curriculum subject to attend such a course. The district must require that a student who utilizes this time complete any missed classroom assignments.

Under the Act, a “driver education course” refers to a private driver training approved by the director of public safety in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4508, which governs Driver Training Schools.