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?