Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > July > 02 > Entry
Lacey sues Dayton school board
Joe Lacey
Dayton Board of Education member Joe Lacey Friday filed suit against the board claiming it violated the state’s open meetings law by deliberating and deciding the fate of Roosevelt High School outside of a public meeting.
In a conversation with me today, Lacey cited this blog, Get on the Bus, and comments by board member Mario Gallin, who explained the process for how the decision to raze Roosevelt was made in this blog post from December.
This much is on the record for certain — the board announced the plan to demolish Roosevelt last May and then-president of the board Gail Littlejohn made it clear a decision had been made prior to any board vote on the matter. The vote came after the decision was made.
Lacey argues this violates Ohio’s laws that require deliberations and decisions of a public board to be made in open public meetings. Lacey points to Gaillin’s recollection that board members had been consulted and their positions regarding Roosevelt were known prior to the announcement. But that is not the same as a vote.
Even so, the board ultimately did hold a public vote on its plan for the Roosevelt site, which includes tearing the old school down and building a combined school and city recreation center in its place.
This comes up now, a year later, because bids will soon be awarded to begin demolition work on Roosevelt. The first contract is for asbestos removal and should be considered by the board any time now as the bidding process has been underway for at least a month.
At best, Lacey’s suit could probably force the board to hold a new public meeting and vote again on Roosevelt. That is was Lacey is what he said he wants — a new meeting at which the issues surrounding the demolition plan are openly discussed and voted on. But there isn’t much hope of stopping the demolition plan.
What do you think of Lacey’s lawsuit? Does the board need a lesson in openness under Ohio law?
Permalink | Comments (24) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By C.E.C.
July 9, 2007 11:33 PM | Link to this
In respects of demolition of older buildings that won’t be rebuilt. So, Why can’t we sell them? I remember about 25 years ago the board sold Huffman Ell. and now it is a senior center. Isn’t the board selling Patterson-Kennedy to U.D.? The board already spent close to $1 million on a new roof for Patterson-Kennedy, Why? I can’t speak for the entire Community Education Counsel I�m just a parent. Nothing against Mrs. Croker I am sure she is a fine administrator, but why wasn’t Mr. Graham’s “the retiring principal” recommendation for his replacement look over? Mrs. Croker was Principal at Allen. She leaving a building population of under 500 and coming to a building with close to 900 students, Mr. Johnson the current Vise-Principal was mr. Graham’s choice. Site-Base and the C.E.C would of backed Mr. Graham’s replacement. On top of all this, the Site-Base Committee at Patterson-Kennedy wasn’t consulted on who was replacing Mr. Graham. From what I understood, according to the Site-Base by-laws and a staement read by the Union Rep. “a displaced teacher” while Dr. Mac and Mrs. Croker were present at a after school meeting. The Committee has the right to interview the 3 finalist and observe their schools that they are Principal’s or Teachers at. Dr. Mac didn’t look too comfortable when the staff stood up and applauded the statement. You could say shocked was the expression on his face.By teachermom
July 5, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this
I wish there were more people on the school board like Joe Lacey. He adds a sense of “checks and balances” to a board that appears to go along with whatever one particular member says. I have seen firsthand how the board manipulates times, dates, and notices of board meetings to suit it’s own needs. If there could be debate on an issue, they find a way to keep the debating party OUT. It’s been done with the community, protestors, the union, media, and I don’t doubt for a second that they have left out opposing board members on purpose. There are ways of getting around opposition. They hold meetings when they know certain people will be out of town, cancel meetings with little notice and reschedule for awkward times when many can’t attend.Board Meetings should be scheduled and adhered to. In other districts the meetings are known well in advance to public, and all members are expected to attend. After a member misses too many meetings, they are kicked off the board because it is a TEAM where everyone’s input is valued and EXPECTED. If DPS BOE can’t handle day-long meetings that other urban districts deal with regularly (listening to citizens and opposition), then maybe they need to back to the business industry where they are not as accountable !By Mary
July 5, 2007 4:32 AM | Link to this
Well, Laura, if I am understanding your comments/questions, it is like this. The boards and administration who run the meetings do not really want public deliberations and welcome only certain types of public participation. The board meetings are executive “meetings held in public, but not public meetings.” For efficiency, to maintain status quo and to make their lives as board members and administrators easy, they want to keep it that way. Let’s face it, public meetings can sometimes get dicey and long. They rock the boat and threaten the status quo. If the powers that be go through the highly structured agenda and limit the bulk of the public interaction to recognition ceremonies for contests, trophies, teacher retirements,briefings by consultants etc, then they do not have to deal with any issues of consequence that use local public input. They seem to want to hear only the positive at the board meetings/pep rallies unless they are airing their own gripes and agenda such as unfunded mandates, the big bad state requirements , student population growth, mandated testing, accountability standards, etc. Parents are welcome in booster clubs if they participate or their children make the teams, but need not get involved in the classroom curriculum - thank you very much. It is also fine to participate in PTOs/PTAs if they are fund raising for doormats, etc. The public is welcomed and bullied to participate with their dollars, but not their ideas and concerns. The board and adminstration knows best and has the power. Just ask them if you are allowed. Public input is kept to three minutes, regardless,and their comments are not really acknowedged, commented on, deliberatd or acted on. Letters to the editor and voicing concerns and ideas to other members of the public seems to be more effective and achievable than dealing directly with the school district boards and administration themselves. However, it is difficult to build up critical public mass and educate the public on what is really going on this way.By Laura
July 4, 2007 7:19 PM | Link to this
Mary, My comment was in reference to your first comment on this article. You state “my district always has unanimous votes and no public deliberations. As I understand it, that is typical of most districts despite the sunshine laws………” That doesn’t sound to me like ANYONE not on the board is active in the meetings. if you are so vocal, why are there not public deliberations?By TB
July 4, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this
Way to go Joe!! DPS saved Stivers, why can’t they save Roosevelt? Is this an Eastside vs. Westside thing? Keep fighting Joe!By greener
July 4, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this
again our long term memory is being put to the test a quote by tthe treasure said it would cost 18 million to do a new job on roosevelt well can we really find out what the 2 bldgs. has REALLY cost the tax payers,MY guestamation as of now in the neighborhood oe22 to 25 million and climbing.it was a bad deal from beginning but once again the GOOD OLE GIRLS had an agenda.building a supper wall mart of any kind won’t work because the CONNECTOR has been opened so every one goes around inner west dayton WHY.rebuild the area around roosevelt move the druggies and the criminals to oakwood,kettering,beavercreek centerville englewood hurber heights that should thin the problem out to where every one would be able to control them the dayton police would get a break the school district could bus them out we could then go in tear down remodel the homes put roosevelt back together AND RENAME IT NATTILE ROTH/roosevelt.BE sure to vote in up coming schl.board elections.TIME FOR THE GOOD OLD GIRLS TO GO! OH thats what they said on their slate/time for good ole boys to go.By charterschoolhater
July 3, 2007 11:43 PM | Link to this
Hi Eve I would like to see people on the board of ed that are responsive to the wishes of the community. The public comment meetings they are are a joke. They are attended by it seems personal friends of the board who say everything the board tells them to say. I think it is pretty sad when a board of ed defies state law and discusses the state of Roosevelt in closed sessions which is contrary to the law, and then she says we did nothing wrong. What a great role model for our students. Do something wrong and then lie about it. way to Ms Issacs!! You are my hero. I want board members who will follow union contracts, listen to teachers, aides, bus drivers custodians and all the other personnel in the trenches. I wnat board members who will fire Mr. Mack and his cronies. I do not wnat who is on the board now, except for Joe Lacey.By Dan Kennedy
July 3, 2007 10:39 PM | Link to this
Re: Rev’dup “Joe Lacey in it for personal advancement” So what, how does that make him any different than anyone else who seeks or holds a pubic office. I suspect that no one welcomed him to the DPS board after he knocked out one of the ruling cabal. I am glad to see him call them on the carpet for the secret planning to take down Roosevelt. I remind readers that his paper wrote a vicious attach on him the day after he won his seat. What I would like to read in this paper is the real story about the city commissioners (Including past DPS board member Williams) plans with the DPS board to spend millions and millions on a new mega-recreation center. How long do you think any of the other centers will remain open after they spend all that money on a gigantic super center? Where will they pull the funds to pay for staff and to operate it? You know where. There is more to this story that just the DPS board�s lack of respect for our architectural heritage. How about it DDN?By Mary
July 3, 2007 9:57 PM | Link to this
“Rev’d up”, since you are rev’d up, why don’t you throw your hat in the ring, run for office, and give the voters even more choices? At least give Joe Lacey credit for running. Many times voters get few or no choices on the ballot.By Joe Lacey
July 3, 2007 7:47 PM | Link to this
I’m not sure what Eve’s point is. Actually I did campaign for the levy. I went door to door in an air cast, spoke to groups, spoke at board meetings, phoned for contributions for the levy campaign and took a vacation day to work on gotv. I didn’t bring up my differences with the board on this issue during the levy campaign and the administration did not try to tear down Roosevelt during the levy campaign. Sometimes we work certain issues and set others aside for another time. I don’t think this proves anything but that we have priorities. And as for my motives, you can say what you want. I put my name behind a 15.17 mill levy from the start. That’s not the kind of thing people do only for political gain. I also want to say to the Educator that this is not the first time that I’ve brought up my problems with this board on the issue of open meetings violations. I’ve brought it up to my fellow board members and administrators and I’m pretty sure it was the subject of my first no vote on the board. I remember talking to Scott Elliott about it afterward.By Scott Elliott
July 3, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this
BTW, Joe did actively campaign for the levy. I know he went door-to-door among other activities.By Anne
July 3, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this
Joe has been vocal during his term. He has questioned the wisdom of the board whenever it seems to falter, which is often. He has spoken out about the backroom deals and good-old-boys network. As for not campaigning more for the levy, well many people could see that things need to change before the district is handed more money. The Dayton people work hard for their money and yet the people downtown think nothing of keeping th echildren in sweltering classrooms with few supplies while they spend 20 million from general funds on TWO office buildings. Now they blame a money shortage on the voters?! No. Thank you, Joe! You are one of the few willing to go out on a limb to demand some accountability.By Rev'd Up
July 3, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this
Joe Lacey in it for personal advancement??? Uh…duh….if you pay attention to local politics Joe has been running for everything and anything for the past decade. State House seats, the school board - I am just glad he finally won the school board seat (on this his 2nd or 3rd try) so he can focus just on making a name for himself in Dayton and not Columbus or statewide. Let the city that created the monster deal with his ego so the whole state doesn’t have to suffer.By Mary
July 3, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this
Laura, some people would laugh at your comment about me not being more vocal about my district. Anyway, a recent comment about Appalachian heritage in the Dayton area is also a comment I have heard about my own district. The person who made the comment was from another suburban district and offered that as an explanation of some of my problems with education in my own district. However, I also have relatives of Appalachian heritage who cared very much about high educational standards, seemed to generate high IQs, became college educated, and went into teaching and other professional paths. The Dayton area probably became Appalachian because of the attraction of heavily unionized, high paying,industial jobs. Maybe this has something to do with the attitudes and educational differences.By Eve
July 3, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
Laura, I’m not quite understanding your comments, as Joe Lacey was not up for election at levy time and if he wasn’t in agreement with the rest of the board I would certainly have expected to hear from him. He has been a board member since 2005 and has rarely missed an opportunity to state his opinion, especially when he could butt heads with his peers — up until the levy. No sage advice from him on where that $30 million was supposed to come from besides our property taxes. And now that all the ugly cutbacks and layoffs have occurred, now all of the sudden he’s jumping back in the public eye — at taxpayers’ expense. Sorry, it smacks more of personal grandstanding than concern for the public’s rights to me.By Eve
July 3, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this
charterschoolhater, I’m hardly a cheerleader for the current board. They’ve made some good decisions, they’ve made some terrible ones. One the one hand, they’ve reduced truancy rates. They’ve raised graduation rates. Now that the federal court has untied their hands on court-ordered busing, they’re moving back to the neighborhood school concept. They cut DECA loose when it was apparent it was in the best interest of the students. On the other hand, they spent way too much on administration buildings, they’ve made some staffing choices I found unfortunate, they did a miserable job explaining the need for the levy and running the campaign, and guess what, I was very sorry they made the decision to tear down Roosevelt. All these people want to throw the current board out but I don’t see a long line of interested citizens who would be qualified to replace them. I believe there are four spots opening this fall. Who would you like to see on the board?By urban girl
July 3, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
Way to go Joe! Hopefully, Roosevelt can be saved. The building is just beautiful and could be used in so many ways for DPS or the city. Stivers and Huffman School have both been renovated for 2 separate purposes. Stivers, of course, will continue as a high school. The original Huffman School building was gutted and renovated as apartment buildings for the elderly and an addition was added on. Bringing that building back to life has created a beautiful spot in the Huffman Historic Area. Keep up the hard work Joe!By Educator
July 3, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
I am suspicious of the motives of a man who wants “to take his ball and go home” when things don’t go his way. Joe Lacey had every opportunity to voice his opinion regarding the preservation of the Roosevelt building to his fellow Board members and to the public while the school board was discussing the very difficult decisions about staff cuts, program cuts and building closings in the wake of the levy defeat. When the majority of the Board of Education made a decision Mr. Lacey did not like, he set out on a course that can only be viewed as vindictive. Assume for a moment that the original decision is ruled invalid due to violation of the Sunshine Law, does Mr. Lacey really think the revote on the decision in a public forum would be any different? I also wonder if Mr. Lacey would have filed this suit if the Board had decided to keep Roosevelt (even though it is not in the best interest of the school system to do so)? If Mr. Lacey feels so strongly about the building that he is willing to elevate brick and mortar over the best interests of the students, then the Board should offer to sell Mr. Lacey the building for $1.00. Then Mr. Lacey could find the money to bring it up to date and keep it operating — and the school could lease it back from Mr. Lacey for $1.00 year. Sounds like a win-win situation.By Laura
July 3, 2007 12:19 AM | Link to this
Mary, I’m surprised you haven’t been more vocal regarding the operations of the school board in your own district. I think you are correct that many school boards do whatever they can to go around the laws if they want. Eve, it likely was some political posturing for Joe Lacey to keep quiet during the campaigning but all things considered, I can’t say I blame him. What is the likelihood of his being elected if he started an attack on the board during the elections? I think it says he was more concerned with getting on the board and having the ability to make changes. I hope he is there to improve things and not just make a name for himself.By charterschoolhater
July 2, 2007 11:48 PM | Link to this
This is a question for Eve. With the current state of Dayton public Schools, what is there good for anyone to say about the actions of this board of education? Answer that Eve.By Dan Kennedy
July 2, 2007 10:05 PM | Link to this
This board is hell-bent on taking down the beautiful school buildings like Roosevelt. Remodeling has proven to only cost 80% of building a new sterile corporate box. Look at the huge success story at Stivers. Why can�t Roosevelt have the same treatment? When our collective architectural heritage is torn down by the shortsighted, it is gone forever. I think that they are erecting these new buildings as monuments to themselves. And what about the City of Dayton commissioners? What is the relationship between the DPS board and them? How can they have millions and millions to build a new mega-recreation center on the Roosevelt site, but not enough to run a jail or keep the lights on at the Priority Board site offices? Good for Joe for trying to put a little sunshine on this board! We need more people like him in office!By Eve
July 2, 2007 7:15 PM | Link to this
I noticed that Joe Lacey, who after his election had nothing particularly positive to say about the actions of the rest of the school board, was noticeably silent during the levy campaign. I’m having a little trouble mustering up any enthusiasm now that he’s decided to again start sounding off. This feels like more of a strategic political move than anything else.By charterschoolhater
July 2, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this
It seems to me that Joe Lacey is the only one one the Board of Education trying to play fair and by the rules. If the Board of Ed truly violated state law, then they should be called to task on it. If this is true, then why is Joe Lacey the only elected member making sure the voting is done right. Let’s hear from the other board members. Why is Joe the only one doing his job. Remember this when the election this fall comes. We need to get rid of these people who will not do their jobs. It is sad but this is not the only time the board members have been asleep at the wheel. Hooray for Joe. You keep speaking your mind, and I will keep voting for you. Thank You Joe.By Mary
July 2, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
Don’t understand your comment about stopping the demolition plan, especially if Lacey could get an injunction. Another interesting legal angle is a board member suing the board. Will he be in the backroom deliberations or vote on how the board should handle his lawsuit? However, Lacey might be making a valuable point on public deliberations by boards. My district always has “unanimous votes” and no public deliberations. As I understand it, that is typical of most districts despite the sunshine laws. The public’s opinion or public airing of the board members’ bias and thought processes, or lack thereof, is an inconvenience - sort of like global warming.