Youngstown City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. State

161 Ohio St.3d 24

161 N.E.3d 483

YOUNGSTOWN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Appellants,

v.The STATE of Ohio et al., Appellees.

No. 2018-1131

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted October 23, 2019

Decided May 13, 2020

Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A., James E. Roberts, David S. Barbee, Youngstown, Christine Z. Papa, and Edward L. Ostrowski Jr., for appellant Youngstown City School District Board of Education.

R. Sean Grayson, for appellant AFSCME Ohio Council 8, AFL–CIO.

Green, Haines, Sgambati Co., L.P.A., Ira J. Mirkin, and Charles W. Oldfield, Youngstown, for appellants Youngstown Education Association, Ohio Education Association, and Jane Haggerty.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, Benjamin M. Flowers, State Solicitor, and Michael J. Hendershot, Deputy Solicitor, for appellees.

Walter Haverfield, L.L.P., Sara Ravas Cooper, Christina Henagen Peer, Cleveland, and Sara M. Markouc, urging reversal for amicus curiae Canton City School District Board of Education.

Pepple & Waggoner, Ltd., Donna M. Andrew, Christian M. Williams, Brian J. DeSantis, and Samantha A. Vajskop, Cleveland, urging reversal for amicus curiae East Cleveland City School District Board of Education.

Baasten, McKinley & Co., L.P.A., Kathleen K. McKinley, Rachel M. Reight, Canton, and Brad Zebedis, urging reversal for amici curiae East Cleveland Education Association, OEA/NEA, and Lorain Education Association, OEA/NEA.

Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Bryan Smeenk, Maria J. Armstrong, and Nicole M. Donovsky, Columbus, urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio School Boards Association, Buckeye Association of School Administrators, Ohio Federation of Teachers, Ohio Association of School Business Officials, Lorain City School District Board of Education, and Columbus City Schools Board of Education.

O'Connor, C.J. {¶ 1} In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether 2015 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 ("H.B. 70") or the process by which it was enacted violates the Ohio Constitution. For the reasons explained below, we hold that the bill does not usurp the power of city school boards, as alleged, in violation of Article VI, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution and that it received sufficient consideration for purposes of Article II, Section 15(C). Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} On February 18, 2015, H.B. 70 was introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives. As introduced, the bill's purpose was to enact new sections within R.C. Chapter 3302 to authorize school districts and community schools to create community learning centers at schools where academic performance is low. The bill defined a "community learning center" as a "school * * * that participates in a coordinated, community-based effort with community partners to provide comprehensive educational, developmental, family, and health services to students, families, and community members during school hours and hours in which school is not in session." H.B. 70, Section 1. The bill as introduced was ten pages long.

{¶ 3} That day, February 18, the House considered H.B. 70 for the first time. On February 25, 2015, the House considered the bill a second time and referred it to the House Education Committee. On May 19, 2015, the House considered the bill a third time and then passed it.

{¶ 4} The bill was introduced in the Senate and considered for the first time on May 20, 2015. On May 27, 2015, the Senate considered the bill a second time and referred it to the Senate Education Committee.

{¶ 5} On June 24, 2015, the Senate Education Committee reported the bill back to the Senate with two amendments. One amendment expanded the definition of facilities that were eligible to become community learning centers, and the other modified the structure of academic-distress commissions under existing law. When it was reported out of committee, the bill had increased from 10 to 77 pages. A significant portion of the amended bill consisted of revisions to the existing law on academic-distress commissions, including the requirement in R.C. 3302.10(C)(1) that for any district that has received an overall grade of "F" on its state report card for three consecutive years, R.C. 3302.10(A)(1), a commission must appoint a chief executive officer who has "complete operational, managerial, and instructional control" over the district. The final bill still provided for the creation of community learning centers—the original focus of H.B. 70.

{¶ 6} The entire Senate considered H.B. 70 for the third time later that day. The Senate adopted two additional but substantially shorter amendments on the Senate floor. One amendment set forth a residency requirement for at least one of the members of an academic-distress commission. The second amendment clarified that a chief executive officer for a school district appointed by an academic-distress commission would serve at the pleasure of the commission. After adopting the amendments, the Senate passed the bill.

{¶ 7} The House received the Senate's version of the bill on the same day that the Senate passed it. The House voted to concur in the Senate's amendments to the bill. Governor Kasich then signed the bill into law, and the legislation became effective October 15, 2015. H.B. 70 remained 77 pages in its final form.

{¶ 8} Appellants, Youngstown City School District Board of Education; AFSCME Ohio Council 8, AFL-CIO; Ohio Education Association; Youngstown Education Association; and Jane Haggerty (collectively, the "Youngstown School Board"), moved for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, challenging the constitutionality of H.B. 70 and the General Assembly's legislative process in enacting it. The Youngstown School Board argued that the law violated Article II, Section 15(C) and Article VI, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution. Article II, Section 15 (C) requires that every bill "be considered by each house on three different days," and Article VI, Section 3 provides that a city school district has the power "by referendum vote to determine for itself the number of members and the organization of the district board of education."

{¶ 9} The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and then denied appellants' motion for preliminary injunction, holding that the Youngstown School Board did not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, did not prove that there would be irreparable harm or undue hardship without an injunction, and did not establish that the public interest would be served by an injunction. The Youngstown School Board appealed, but the Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of a final, appealable order and remanded the case to the trial court.

{¶ 10} On remand, the parties agreed to submit the issues for final determination by the trial court based on the evidence submitted at the preliminary-injunction hearing and on the parties' briefs. On October 11, 2017, the trial court denied the Youngstown School Board's motion for permanent injunction and declaratory judgment, holding that H.B. 70 did not violate Article II, Section 15(C) or Article VI, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution. The trial court also granted appellees the state of Ohio; Paolo DeMaria,¹ Superintendent of Public Instruction; and the Ohio Department of Education judgment in their favor as a matter of law.

{¶ 11} On appeal, the Tenth District affirmed, concluding that appellants had failed to show that the General Assembly violated Article II, Section 15(C) of the Ohio Constitution, because "H.B. No. 70 as introduced and Am.Sub.H.B. No. 70 as adopted shared a common purpose of providing measures to improve underperforming schools." 2018-Ohio-2532, 104 N.E.3d 1060, ¶ 23. However, the dissenting judge argued that the amendments to H.B. No. 70 vitally altered the legislation and therefore the bill was passed in violation of Article II, Section 15(C). Id. at ¶ 47-48. The appeals court further held that H.B. 70 did not violate Article VI, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution because the bill did not give the chief executive officer authority to perform all of the school board's functions. Id. at ¶ 29.

{¶ 12} The Youngstown School Board sought this court's discretionary review, and we accepted the following propositions of law for review:

The Ohio Constitution's Three Reading Rule is a mandatory provision. A bill allowing school boards and communities to jointly provide supportive services to schools that is transformed overnight into an amended bill imposing the installation of unelected CEOs imbued with complete operational, managerial, and instructional control of school districts must comply with the Three Reading Rule.

Am. Sub. HB 70, which radically amended R.C. 3302.10 to include the appointment of an unelected chief executive officer who is vested with complete operational, managerial, and instructional control of a school district, usurps the powers of elected boards of education in violation of Ohio Constitution Article VI, Section 3.

See 153 Ohio St.3d 1503, 2018-Ohio-4285, ––– N.E.3d ––––.

II. ANALYSIS

{¶ 13} We must determine whether H.B. 70 or the process by which it was enacted violates the Ohio Constitution. This case is readily resolved by application of existing standards.

A. The Three-Consideration Rule

{¶ 14} The first proposition requires us to consider the three-consideration clause of the Ohio Constitution, which states:

Every bill shall be considered by each house on three different days, unless two-thirds of the members elected to the house in which it is pending suspend this requirement, and every individual consideration of a bill or action suspending the requirement shall be recorded in the journal of the respective house.

Article II, Section 15(C), Ohio Constitution. We have held that "where it can be proven that the bill in question was not considered the required three times, the consequent enactment is void and without...