by Jeremy Neff | Mar 8, 2017 | Legislation, School Finance
Every two years a new General Assembly convenes in Ohio. The General Assembly will consider hundreds of bill and even pass many of them, but none are more important to state government than the appropriations bills that make up the budget bill.
The state budget cycle aligns with the state fiscal year of July 1 through June 30, so the legislative process for passing a budget typically runs from sometime in January through June 30 every odd-numbered year. In addition to allocating funding for Ohio’s K–12 schools, the budget bill also typically contains numerous substantive changes in the law (e.g., teacher evaluation changes, licensure requirements). Following is a high-level overview of the budget process, with a goal of informing school officials how, when, and to whom to provide input during this process. This input is critical to ensuring that legislators have the practical information they need to determine how their proposals would affect school districts. This practical information is valuable to the decision-making processes taking place at the state level during the budget process.
Governor
The governor begins by submitting the planned executive budget for the main operating appropriations bill to the General Assembly within four weeks after the new General Assembly is organized (or by March 15 if a new governor is in office). Each expense must come from a specific funding source, and each funding source may fund only certain expenses. Perhaps the most important requirement is that the budget be balanced: expenses may not exceed revenues. The governor may order spending reductions or even declare a fiscal emergency if revenues fail to meet projections. The governor typically uses the executive budget as a way to signal policy priorities and to propose new ideas. The governor’s budget is presented to the House without changes, so this is not an effective time to lobby the governor for changes.
House
The newly drafted budget bill (the current bill is HB 49) lands in Ohio’s House of Representatives, where it is referred to the Finance Committee and subcommittees. These committees hold hearings on the bill, when input may be provided to state representatives through written and live testimony. It is quite common for extensive changes to be made based on recommendations of the committees and subcommittees. Because of this, the House committee and subcommittee hearing phase is an especially important time for school officials and professional organizations to provide input. When extensive changes are made in committees, a substitute bill is drafted. After the bill has been considered and amended in the committee, it goes back to the House for a House floor vote.
Senate
Normally, after the House passes the bill, it is introduced in the Senate. However, because of time constraints on the budget bill, the Senate Finance Committee will usually begin its hearings on the bill while it is still in the House. The Senate Finance Committee and subcommittees hold hearings and receive input just as the House committees do. In some budget cycles, the subcommittees do not hold their own hearings. Rather, all hearings are held by the full Finance Committee. After the substitute bill is amended in the committee, it goes to the Senate for a floor vote. As with the House committee and subcommittee phase, this is an important time for school officials and professional organizations to provide input.
Conference Committee
The House must then concur in, or agree to, the Senate amendments. But this sometimes doesn’t happen. In this event, a conference committee is formed of members of both the House and the Senate. The conference committee must reach agreement on a committee report (also referred to as a compromise bill) to be voted on by the full House and Senate by the June 30 deadline. Each chamber must approve an identical budget bill. No amendments may be made by the separate chambers when they vote on the committee report, and time is very limited between the conclusion of the conference committee and the votes on the final bill. Thus, any last-minute lobbying must occur before the conclusion of the conference committee. This is sometimes when fast-moving changes are inserted or deleted from the bill.
Back to the Governor
When the legislature finally agrees to the terms of the bill, it quickly moves back to the governor to be signed. The governor may sign the bill or veto certain provisions, called a line-item veto. The reasons for the veto would be provided, and the General Assembly may, by three-fifths vote, override the veto. The veto power does not allow the governor to add to the budget bill – only to subtract. This allows for some final limited input from school officials and professional organizations.
How, and to Whom, to Provide Input
During committee hearings, the Finance Committees of both the House and the Senate receive input from state agencies, lobbyists, special interest groups, and other legislators and stakeholders. Testimony may be provided for these hearings in either written or live verbal form. Although written input will be heard, live and in person is often much more effective. Additionally, any legislator may provide input in the form of amendments. The state education associations are active during this process, so stay tuned. Ennis Britton attorneys also carefully monitor developments, using Twitter to give up-to-the-minute updates. During this important time, we can assist your district or group in preparing and delivering testimony at the Statehouse.
Follow these links to stay up-to-date on the House Finance Committee schedule and the Senate Finance Committee schedule. Follow Ennis Britton and our attorneys on Twitter to get the most current information. When the budget is completed, our firm immediately reads and holds an Administrator’s Academy in July to let you know what’s in the budget.
by Jeremy Neff | Jun 27, 2016 | Legislation, Student Education and Discipline
Efforts to reform truancy policy in Ohio have resulted in House Bill 410, which would eliminate suspension or expulsion of students as a punishment for excessive absence. The bill, which was passed in the House and now awaits action in the Senate Education Committee, would take effect in the 2017–2018 school year. HB 410 represents a shift away from zero-tolerance approaches to unexcused absences by removing “excessive truancy” from district policy regarding violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior.
Boards would need to adopt or amend existing policy to address student absences. Schools would be required to set up absence intervention teams – a district or school administrator, a teacher, and the parent or guardian of the child – aimed at finding solutions to get students to class via “absence intervention plans.” The bill suggests that the team collaborate with school psychologists, counselors and social workers, as well as public agencies and nonprofit organizations, which can provide additional assistance.
Schools would be required to report to the Department of Education any cases of habitual truancy, which has been redefined by the bill in terms of hours missed instead of days missed. The student would be assigned an intervention team, which must also be reported to the Department of Education. Though the bill is aimed at avoiding court interactions, juvenile court may issue an order to require that a child attend a certain number of consecutive hours unless the student has a legitimate excused absence.
For schools, a comparison for the absence intervention plan and the new protocol for truants is perhaps the implementation of a section 504 plan. Likely, the intervention team will conduct an equivalent to a functional behavioral analysis and come up with modifications in accordance. In contrast to IEPs, which are detailed, goal oriented, and have numerous methods for enforcement by the ODE, the solutions of the intervention team are not nearly as rigidly enforced by the language of the bill.
Should a child fail to complete the absence intervention plan laid out by the intervention team, the school can file a complaint to adjudicate the student as unruly. At that point, this complaint would be held in abeyance until the child either completes or fails to comply with a court diversion program. A child who fails to complete the program could be adjudicated as a delinquent child because of chronic truancy. The consequences for the parent or guardian of a chronic truant include a minor misdemeanor charge if the court finds that their actions in any way contributed to the behavior. In addition, they must pay a surety bond of $500.
The practical implications of these changes would likely place a burden on schools. Further constraints would be imposed on their staffing, who must participate in the intervention teams at additional expense. School budgets would be forced to accommodate in-school suspensions in place of expulsions or out-of-school suspension, which would require an extra classroom and teacher. However, the bill provides for no funding to implement these changes. The new approach to truancy will undoubtedly present a challenge to districts but aims to be a more effective means of addressing student absences.
by Jeremy Neff | Jun 2, 2016 | Legislation, School Finance
The Ohio Senate has approved a bill that would suspend property tax increases for commercial and industrial developments until a certificate of occupancy is granted. Any increase in the taxable value of properties that are being newly developed or redeveloped would not be subject to property taxes until the development is completed. Senate Bill (SB) 235 passed 22-11 on May 4.
Advocates of SB 235 say that it will encourage improvement of undeveloped property as developers would not face tax increases until a project is near completion. This measure would increase land development and job growth, and eventually increase property taxes when the development is completed.
However, the bill has faced debate and opposition, with many local governments expressing their concern while the bill was in the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The concern is that the bill would cause an unknown fiscal loss to local governments, although it would have no impact at the state level.
The Ways and Means Committee notes that it responded to the concerns by adding several amendments to the bill. One of those amendments is a ten-year reset, so that the taxable value of the property resets to the actual value at the eleventh year (and every ten years after that) for the tax suspension while the property is still in development.
As school districts are funded in large part by property taxes, SB 235 has implications to school districts. Many developments are years in the making, as noted by the ten-year reset amendment. This means that school districts would potentially lose out on many years of funding during the development of these commercial and industrial properties.
SB 235 has now been introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives for consideration. You are urged to contact your Ohio representative to provide input for the House committee that will be assigned to SB 235. Ennis Britton attorneys are available for counsel regarding how this bill may affect your school district.
by Jeremy Neff | Jun 2, 2016 | Labor and Employment, Legislation
Effective December 1, 2016, “white collar” salaried employees not otherwise exempted from the overtime rules in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) will be eligible for overtime pay if their annual salary is less than $47,476. President Obama asked the Department of Labor to revise the exemption threshold of the FLSA from the current level of $23,660, which has not changed for more than a decade. The new amount more than doubles the current salary threshold.
Broad exemptions from FLSA overtime rules exist for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees. These exemptions are based on specific job duties as well as salary thresholds. In other words, an employee might have the duties of an administrator but not be exempt from overtime rules because her salary does not exceed the income threshold.
When this new rule takes effect, employers will have several options for employees who will no longer be exempt from the FLSA overtime rules:
- Pay time-and-a-half for overtime (granting compensatory time may be an option created through collective bargaining)
- Increase salaries above the threshold via regular pay or bonus pay with certain restrictions
- Limit workers’ hours to 40 per week
- Decrease base hourly pay to offset any increased overtime costs
- Combine any of the above options
What This Means to Your School District
Common positions of concern in school districts include technology directors, food service supervisors, maintenance supervisors, and transportation supervisors. Even though these positions might previously have qualified for the administrative exemption, with the increased salary threshold many will no longer be exempt after the revised rules go into effect. The FLSA provides a special exemption from the professional employee salary threshold for teachers. Even if a teacher does not meet the new $47,476 threshold – and many will not – the rules still exempt them from overtime. A similar special rule applies to “academic administrative employees” as long as they are paid at least base teacher pay.
School districts may potentially have professional employees who do not neatly fit into the “teacher” and “academic administrative employee” categories. Ennis Britton attorneys are able to assist districts in identifying such employees and exploring how the new rules affect them.
School districts must track eligible employees’ hours and pay overtime as appropriate. Districts should maintain proper payroll records and require that employees submit time records. The burden is on employers to ensure FLSA compliance. Laws limiting salary reductions for school employees must be considered when planning for the new rules. Ennis Britton attorneys are available to help with any questions regarding these changes, such as which employees are affected by this change, how to maintain payroll records, and how job descriptions and the duties test apply.
by Jeremy Neff | Dec 22, 2014 | General, Student Education and Discipline
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case regarding the extent of Constitutional protection of speech on social media. In United States v. Elonis, Elonis wrote graphic lyrics on Facebook which involved killing his estranged wife, law enforcement, and school students. Elonis is the Supreme Court’s first freedom of speech case involving cyber speech.
The issue before the Court is whether “conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten” or whether “it is enough to show that a ‘reasonable person’ would regard the statement as threatening.” Basically, under this “threat” statute, does is matter whether Elonis intended to cause fear or whether a reasonable person would consider his postings a threat?
To get an understanding of the context of this case, the following excerpts provide a brief glimpse into the speech that Elonis posted on Facebook:
“There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts.“
“Little agent lady stood so close. Took all the strength I had not to turn the b–ch ghost. Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat. Leave her bleedin’ from her jugular in the arms of her partner.”
“Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined. And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.”
(In order to avoid complications with school internet filters, this blog post avoids the more profanity-laced postings of Elonis and censors a word that was spelled out in his original posting.)
Elonis argued that, under the applicable statute, the government must prove that the speaker intended the speech to be threatening. His argument centered on the protections offered under the First Amendment. In making this argument, he tried to relate his speech to the speech of famous rap artists, who are typically provided First Amendment protections despite the fact that they often express violent and threatening messages. On the other side, the government argued that the standard under the statute should be a reasonable person standard, requiring only that a reasonable person would consider the speech to be threatening.
The questions from the Supreme Court justices addressed both sides of the issue during oral arguments. Some of their questions included the following:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Elonis’s attorney about how the government would prove whether a particular threat, “in the mind of the threatener[,] was genuine?”
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the government’s attorney on its interpretation of a “reasonable person.” He used the example of teenagers making a threat while playing a video game and questioned He then expressed concerns over the reasonable person standard being applied consistently with the same speech.
Justice Elena Kagan took a middle ground proposing a “reckless standard,” meaning a prosecutor would need to show only that the speaker should have known there was a substantial probability that the speech would cause fear, even if the speaker did not intent to threaten the listener. This standard would provide more protections for speech than the “reasonable person” standard, but it would not require the government to determine the speaker’s subjective intent.
It will be several weeks or months before the Supreme Court issues its highly anticipated decision in this case. Despite the fact that this case focuses on the interpretation of a specific threat statute, it will give insight into the justice’s views on freedom of speech in the context of online speech. In the absence of any significant appellate case law governing Ohio schools, the Elonis decision will provide some guidance to schools as they determine how to address student cyber speech.
United States v. Elonis, 730 F.3d 321 (3rd Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 134 S.Ct. 2819 (2014).
