Opinion ID: 4533770
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Provision for City School Boards

Text: {¶ 23} The second proposition of law requires us to consider whether H.B. 70 violates the Ohio Constitution’s provision for city school boards. That provision states: Provision shall be made by law for the organization, administration and control of the public school system of the state supported by public funds: provided, that each school district embraced wholly or in part within any city shall have the power by referendum vote to determine for itself the number of members and the organization of the district board of education, and provision 10 January Term, 2020 shall be made by law for the exercise of this power by such school districts. Article VI, Section 3, Ohio Constitution. {¶ 24} We presume that legislative enactments are constitutional. R.C. 1.47(A). “A party asserting a facial challenge to a statute must prove beyond a reasonable doubt ‘that no set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid.’ ” Ohio Renal Assn. v. Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection Amendment Commt., 154 Ohio St.3d 86, 2018-Ohio-3220, 111 N.E.3d 1139, ¶ 26, quoting Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 167, 2012-Ohio-2187, 970 N.E.2d 898, ¶ 21. When considering a challenge under Article VI, Section 3 to legislation, we explained that “we must interpret the applicable constitutional provisions and acknowledge that ‘a court has nothing to do with the policy or wisdom of a statute. That is the exclusive concern of the legislative branch of the government. When the validity of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, the sole function of the court is to determine whether it transcends the limits of legislative power.’ ” State ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Bd. of Edn., 111 Ohio St.3d 568, 2006-Ohio-5512, 857 N.E.2d 1148, ¶ 20, quoting State ex rel. Bishop v. Mt. Orab Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 139 Ohio St. 427, 438, 40 N.E.2d 913 (1942). {¶ 25} We have previously held that Article VI, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Ohio Constitution grant the General Assembly “broad powers to provide a thorough and efficient system of common schools    and for the organization, administration, and control thereof.” State ex. rel. Core v. Green, 160 Ohio St. 175, 115 N.E.2d 157 (1953), paragraph one of the syllabus. We recognized that “[t]he General Assembly has the power to provide for the creation of school districts, for changes and modifications thereof, and for the methods by which changes and modifications may be accomplished   .” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO We have also declared that “[b]oards of education have only such powers as are conferred by statute.” Marion Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Edn., 167 Ohio St. 543, 545, 150 N.E.2d 407 (1958). We found that Article VI, Section 3 “ ‘does not give those [local] voters more power than the General Assembly to create policy and organize and administer a system of public education throughout the state.’ ” (Brackets sic.) Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers at ¶ 46, quoting State ex. rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Bd. of Edn., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-508, 2004-Ohio-4421, ¶ 39. {¶ 26} According to the Youngstown School Board, H.B. 70 is unconstitutional “because it strips all power from city school boards that are subject to R.C. 3302.10.”2 The Youngstown School Board argues that the first clause of Article VI, Section 3 grants the General Assembly broad power in the area of public education but that the second clause reserves some of that power for city-schooldistrict voters, who exercise their authority through city school boards.3 {¶ 27} We agree with the Youngstown School Board’s observation that “Article VI, Section 3 grants a positive right to electors in city school districts to determine the number of members and organization of their boards of education,” but we do not agree that the section also sets “a negative limit on the General Assembly’s authority over city school districts.” Indeed, in Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers, 111 Ohio St.3d 568, 2006-Ohio-5512, 857 N.E.2d 1148, at ¶ 47, we stated that “Section 3, Article [VI] governs questions of size and organization, not the power and authority, of city school boards.” (Emphasis 2. R.C. 3302.10 governs academic-distress commissions. 3. We do not make any holding related to the claim of amici curiae East Cleveland City School District Board of Education and Canton City School District Board of Education that R.C. 3302.11 is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows a mayor to appoint a new board of education after a school district has failed to meet certain standards for improvement. Because the Youngstown School Board did not raise this argument and the parties did not have an opportunity to litigate it, we do not evaluate it. See State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Henry Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 149, 2010-Ohio-1533, 926 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 19. 12 January Term, 2020 added.) We have spoken in exceedingly broad terms about the General Assembly’s authority over public education in the state, including affirming that “[a] board of education is ‘a mere instrumentality of the state to accomplish its purpose in establishing and carrying forward a system of common schools throughout the state.’ ” Id., quoting Cincinnati Bd. of Edn. v. Volk, 72 Ohio St. 469, 485, 74 N.E. 646 (1905). {¶ 28} To be sure, we have affirmed legislation that substantially altered the power of electors and school boards. In Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers, we upheld a law setting up a charter-school system in this state, which undeniably took power from city school boards but did not usurp them. And in Core, 160 Ohio St. 175, 180, 115 N.E.2d 157, we determined that the General Assembly has the power to create districts and move a territory from one district to another, thereby changing a school board’s power as it does so. {¶ 29} The General Assembly, therefore, may lawfully influence the authority of school boards in any manner of ways, large and small. The limitation in Article VI, Section 3 on the General Assembly’s power merely entitles electors to choose the number of members and the organization of the district board of education. {¶ 30} The Youngstown School Board fairly describes H.B. 70 as allowing an academic-distress commission to remove nearly all the power and authority from a city school board and to place that authority in a chief executive officer under the circumstances contemplated by the law. But Article VI, Section 3 does not prohibit this action, for the reason we recognized in Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers, 111 Ohio St.3d 568, 2006-Ohio-5512, 857 N.E.2d 1148, at ¶ 47: the constitutional provision requires that a city’s electors be able to decide the number of members of and the organization of a school board but does not require that any specific power or authority be vested in the school board. Accordingly, to the extent that H.B. 70 allows a city’s electorate to “determine for itself the number of members and the 13 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO organization of the district board of education,” it does not violate Article VI, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.