School levies on the August 2012 ballot

Here are the school levies and issues that will appear on the August 7th, 2012 special election ballots.

There are 26 requests for new monies (including bonds) and 9 renewal requests.

There are 2 bond issues, 1 combined bond and tax levy issue, 4 income tax issues, 1 combined bond and income tax issue, 1 combined income and tax levy issue and 26 tax levy issues. That makes a total of 35 school financing issues in total

County District Type N/R
Ashtabula Ashtabula Area CSD Tax Levy New
Ashtabula Geneva Area CSD Tax Levy New
Ashtabula Jefferson Area LSD Tax Levy New
Butler Monroe LSD Tax Levy New
Columbiana Columbiana EVSD Bond New
Cuyahoga Brecksville-Broadview Heights CSD Tax Levy Renew
Darke Tri-Village LSD Tax Levy New
Delaware Buckeye Valley LSD Income Tax & Bond New
Erie Margaretta LSD Tax Levy Renew
Franklin Groveport-Madison LSD Tax Levy Renew
Fulton Swanton LSD Tax Levy Renew
Geauga Chardon LSD Tax Levy New
Greene Xenia Community CSD Income Tax New
Hamilton Lockland LSD Tax Levy New
Holmes East Holmes LSD Tax Levy New
Lake Madison LSD Tax Levy New
Licking North Fork LSD Income Tax Renew
Medina Buckeye LSD Tax Levy New
Miami Bethel LSD Tax Levy Renew
Miami Bethel LSD Tax Levy Renew
Miami Tipp City EVSD Tax Levy New
Montgomery Northmont CSD Tax Levy Renew
Montgomery Vandalia-Butler CSD Tax Levy New
Richland Clear Fork Valley LSD Income Tax New
Sandusky Clyde-Green Springs EVSD Tax Levy New
Scioto Green LSD Tax Levy New
Shelby Jackson Center LSD Income Tax New
Stark Louisville CSD Tax Levy New
Summit Coventry LSD Bond and Tax Levy New
Summit Barberton CSD Tax Levy New
Summit Woodridge LSD Tax Levy New
Wayne Dalton LSD Tax Levy Renew
Williams Bryan CSD Bond New
Williams Edon Northwest LSD Income Tax and Tax Levy New
Wood Lake LSD Tax Levy New

Here are the levy results for the August 2011 special election. 8 of 25 issues were approved. All renewal and replacement requests passed, with just 4 of 21 new requests.

Why Levy requests are down

Gongwer reports

Fewer than normal school and library issues will appear on the March primary ballot and advocates suspect the cause was confusion surrounding when Ohio would hold the election.

A partisan dispute over the drawing of new congressional district maps had Ohioans for a time scheduled to vote in two primary elections before a compromise map established a single Mar. 6 primary date. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, December 14, 2011)

Among the 465 issues appearing on the March 6 ballot are nine bond issues, 280 tax requests, 124 local liquor options, nine combination questions and 43 miscellaneous issues, according the secretary of state.

Schools as usual make up the brunt of issues with seven bond requests, 85 tax levies, seven combination bond-tax issues, two combination income tax-bond issues, and 11 tax changes, according to the SOS.

The number of school levies is down, however, from the last presidential primary election, Ohio School Boards Association Director of Legislative Services Damon Asbury said. Whereas Ohio's 2008 primary saw 191 issues, only 112 funding requests are up this year.

"I think the numbers this year at least for this March primary may be a little lower just because of the confusion that districts were experiencing back in November, December when it wasn't clear whether we were going to have a March primary or a May primary."

The more likely explanation is that fact that the Republican presidential primary is contested and will attract lots of conservative voters who typically do not support school funding issues.

We published a full list of the school levy issues that will appear on the March 6th primary ballots, here.

August 2nd, 2011 complete levy results

Below, sorted by county, you will find the latest provisional school levy results for the August 2nd, 2011 Ohio local elections.

As you can see it was another difficult night for school funding. with just 8 of 25 issues being approved by the voters. All renewal and replacement requests passed, along with just 4 of 21 new requests.

August 2011 Levy Results

What's John Kasich hiding?

It's being widely reported that Governor Kasich and his legal team are refusing to fulfill a public information request made by legislators.

State Reps. Debbie Phillips, D-Athens, and Matt Lundy, D-Elyria, said yesterday that they are considering legal action after being rebuffed in a public-records request, filed April 6, for 17 items of information related to education funding.

Kimberly Kutschbach, Kasich's assistant chief legal counsel, said Monday in a letter responding to the Democrats' query that the governor's office "does not have any public records responsive to your requests" for 16 of the 17 items.

This is becoming a commonplace response from the Governor. We have heard from many sources that their requests receive the same response. We too received a similar response recently

Your request for emails, spreadsheets, memos, documents from "said" employees is vague and overbroad. Therefore, it is denied.
However, you are welcome to amend your request so that it is more specific.
Thank you,

Lisa Iannotta
Chief Legal Counsel
Department of Administrative Services
30 E. Broad Street, 40th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 728-3475 Direct Dial

We had simply asked for "a list of employees who provided the analysis and generated this report, a copy of all emails, spreadsheets, memos, and documents from said employees regarding this report. Thanks" in reference to the DAS SB5 savings report.

What information is the Kasich administration now saying it doesn't have?

Among the items Kasich's lawyer said the administration didn't have: research that shows Kasich's new school-funding formula will improve student achievement; a copy of the formula itself; a list of charter schools in academic emergency or watch; and projections of cost-savings from eliminating the "last-in, first-out" rules for educators.

A request for communications to and from the Fordham Foundation, a pro-school choice think tank, was deemed too broad to fulfil.

What is more troubling? That they claim not to have this information in order to obfuscate legitimate requests, or that it genuinely doesn't exist?

If it is indeed the latter, it's an admission that they intend to blow up public education in Ohio and have done no research or analysis as to the effects, nor what they are planning to replace it with.

Has there ever been a more reckless budget?