PDQ May 2019

Note: To print this issue, you may need to choose the “shrink to fit” option in the window.

In this issue: Use of electronic signatures • New guidance on released time for religious instruction • Recent Ohio attorney general opinion addresses sick leave donation banks • Preparing for the state budget bill and other legislation • Effective policy management: Tips for success • Revised policy clarifies membership relationship • Sample policies included with this issue

Use of electronic signatures

by Sara C. Clark, chief legal counsel

Electronic signatures have fundamentally changed how companies conduct their business transactions. The speed and ease of electronic transactions have made them commonplace in our global marketplace, and many school districts are questioning whether similar efficiencies can be found through the use of electronic signatures in their districts. This article provides the legal framework for electronic signatures and reviews the issues a district should consider prior to implementing an electronic signature policy.

Legal framework
The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) was introduced in 1999 as a method to “remove barriers to electronic commerce by validating and effectuating electronic records and signatures.” UETA is a model uniform law and serves as a template for most state laws, including Ohio’s Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (Ohio Revised Code (RC) 1306).

There are three basic tenets to the laws governing electronic signatures under UETA and RC 1306. First, electronic signatures typically have the same legal force and effect as a pen-and-ink signature, although the laws specifically prohibit certain documents like wills, codicils or testamentary trusts from being executed with an electronic signature.

Second, an electronic signature is broadly defined under both state and federal law as “an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign that record.” The definition does not mandate the adoption of any particular hardware or software application. Any technology, such as public key infrastructure, PIN/password, biometric identification and physical token, that uniquely identifies the signer and physically or logically associates that person with the electronic record that is signed could generate an electronic signature.

Third, parties participating in an electronic transaction must voluntarily consent to conduct the transaction electronically. Consent can be expressed or implied based on context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ conduct.

Policy considerations
Before authorizing the use of electronic signatures, your district should establish a policy and procedure concerning the use of electronic signatures in the district. In drafting and adopting your policy and procedure, consideration should be given to the following:

Evaluate your documents. The first step in drafting your electronic signature policy is to determine which of the district’s documents work best for electronic signatures. In some cases, the use of an electronic signature has been specifically authorized by state or federal law. For example, the use of facsimile signatures for purposes of the withdrawal of funds is specifically prescribed in state statute. A refresher on these requirements is available in the November 2018 Policy Development Quarterly. Additionally, the use of electronic signatures is specifically authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, provided that districts take the necessary steps to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the integrity of the process.

In many cases, however, state and federal law are silent on the use of an electronic signature. In the absence of specific statutory authorization, your district should review its documents to evaluate the risks associated with using an electronic signature. In conducting this review, the district should consider the likelihood that someone might challenge the validity of an electronic signature and the potential impact a successful challenge would have on the district. For example, a district may be comfortable using an electronic signature for a lower-risk document like a staff leave request but may decide to require a “wet signature” on a higher-risk document like a student’s individualized education program. This analysis also can help the district determine the specific signature technology that may be warranted for each type of document.

Review available technologies. A district may want to consider using different types of electronic signatures, depending on the risk and compliance requirements associated with a specific document. For example, for documents where the validity of a signature is unlikely to be challenged, many districts use standard electronic signatures in which signers are emailed a unique document link that is embedded in an email. Because most people have access to one email account, this serves as a basic method of signer authentication. To strengthen security, districts can add a second form of signer authentication.

Enhanced electronic signatures add a signer authentication challenge before a document can be opened or signed. Using methods such as phone PINs, social IDs, passwords or knowledge-based authentication, the identity of signers can be verified with very high levels of assurance. In cases where there is a greater likelihood that a signature will be challenged or where the potential impact of a successful challenge is significant, digital signatures are frequently used. Digital signatures are a very specific type of electronic signature that use certificate-based digital IDs to authenticate signer identity.

As a reminder, the definition of electronic signature is very broad, and these are just a few examples of technologies that may meet the definition. Districts should review the available technologies and establish appropriate processes to ensure signers can be identified and authenticated during the signing process.

Build best practices into your policy. Electronic signatures are valid in Ohio only if an individual intends to sign the record and both parties agree to conduct the transaction by electronic means. For this reason, it is wise to include a step in your electronic signature workflow where signers take a clear action, like typing or drawing a name or clicking a button, to establish their intent to be bound. You also may want to consider adding a consent clause requiring parties to consent to transacting business by electronic means and using electronic signatures in lieu of paper documents. Some districts have added language to their policies and documents offering signers the chance to opt out of signing any documents electronically at any time.

The district should maintain electronically signed records in a manner that is both consistent with the district’s document retention policies and capable of accurately and completely reproducing electronic records and signatures in their original form. The district’s retention procedures should allow it to verify the attribution of a signature to a specific individual, detect changes or errors in the information contained in the electronic record and prevent access, use or manipulation by an unauthorized person.

The use of electronic signatures can be a complicated issue. Districts that want to use electronic signatures should work with legal counsel to verify the risks and benefits associated with using electronic signatures on certain documents and ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place so that the district’s electronic documents are legal and enforceable.

Policy implications
To serve a growing group of OSBA members, we have added a new policy, EHB, Use of Electronic Signatures. This is not a required policy but is available for districts that want to authorize the establishment of a procedure for using electronic signatures. This policy alone is not enough to cover all considerations for electronic signature authentication. Districts should work to develop specific district-level procedures with assistance from their legal counsel.

Return to top

New guidance on released time for religious instruction

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

Prior to 2014, the practice for released time for religious instruction in Ohio was driven by case law and the 1988 Ohio attorney general (OAG) Opinion 88-001. In September 2014, House Bill (HB) 171 took effect and enacted Ohio Revised Code (RC) section 3313.6022. On April 17, OAG released a new opinion (2019-015) on released time for religious instruction. The opinion addresses specific questions relating to what a school district’s policy may permit or prohibit.

Is compliance with RC 3313.6022 enough?
Let’s begin with whether compliance with RC 3313.6022 alone is enough to guarantee that your board policy is constitutional. OAG Opinion 2019-015 makes clear the answer is no. OAG opinion 2019-015 notes that in 1988, well before the enactment of RC 3313.6022, OAG advised that a board may adopt a released time for religious instruction policy provided the policy complies with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Ohio Constitution, as applied and interpreted by the United States Supreme Court and Ohio courts. This requirement has not changed, therefore a policy that complies with RC 3313.6022 alone may still be unlawful.

Is this policy required?
The answer to this question ultimately goes back to the 1988 OAG opinion. In that opinion, two main questions were resolved. First, OAG advised that boards have the authority to adopt a policy permitting students to be released for religious instruction off school property so long as the release comports with the religious freedom guarantees set forth in the United States and Ohio constitutions. Second, OAG advises that while there is statutory authority for a board to adopt a policy, it is ultimately up to the discretion of the board whether to do so. Nothing found in RC 3313.6022 or OAG Opinion 2019-015 changes this; therefore, policy adoption remains optional for districts.

OAG Opinion 2019-015 questions and answers
This opinion focuses on what a district’s policy on released time for religious instruction may permit or prohibit and on the policy implementation. The opinion analyzes and resolves several specific questions and scenarios. Keep in mind these scenarios and questions are fact-specific and rely on certain assumptions. As the facts change, so may the answer. This article will address each question to keep you informed so that you remain compliant with law when drafting and implementing these policies.

May the availability of a released time religious instruction course be publicized in or through a public school? (Four scenarios provided below.)
Scenario 1: Open house forum — If a school district permits entities offering non-school-sponsored activities or opportunities for students to host tables or other displays at orientation or other open house-type events, may it permit entities offering information about released-time classes to host tables or displays at similar events?

Scenario 2: Handout forum — If a school permits the distribution of materials regarding nonschool-sponsored activities or opportunities for students, may it permit the distribution of materials on released time for religious instruction and sign-up forms?

In analyzing these two scenarios, the opinion makes a few critical assumptions. First, it assumes that these tables or displays are staffed by individuals from the organization providing the religious instruction rather than school personnel. Second, it assumes that the district permits other entities to provide information and distribute materials about other nonschool-sponsored activities in the same way. In all cases of material distribution, the assumption is that these materials are provided by the organization and not produced by the school or its employees.

Generally, a public school is not a traditional public forum, but it may become a limited public forum if it is opened to expressive activity with reasonable viewpoint-neutral time, place and manner restrictions. The opinion includes a detailed analysis of the law in this area and advises that if a board of education permits other nonschool-sponsored entities to host tables or displays and/or distribute materials regarding nonschool-sponsored activities or opportunities for students, the board may permit the same as it relates to released time for religious instruction.

So, if you have created a limited public forum through policy or practice and the information, materials and sign-up forms related to the released time religious instruction course otherwise satisfy the criteria in the board’s policies or practices regarding the open house forum and the distribution of materials, the board may not prohibit the presentation of this information simply because the speech is presented from a religious viewpoint.

This means you will need to refer to any policies or practices related to entities that offer information on nonschool-sponsored activities or opportunities for students via hosting tables or displays or the distribution of materials within the school. Does your district currently permit or prohibit this practice? This will tell you if you’ve created a limited public forum. OSBA policy KJA, Distribution of Materials in the Schools, provides districts the opportunity to choose whether distribution of nonschool-sponsored materials on school property or at school activities is allowable.

Scenario 3: Consent forms — May students take home from school consent forms for parents to review to decide whether to consent for release of their child for religious instruction?

In this scenario, the opinion assumes that the consent forms are created by the school district for the purpose of complying with RC 3313.6022 (B)(1), which requires parental consent. It further assumes that the content of the form is limited to documenting permission and that it does not contain any religious content. Given these facts, the form qualifies as government speech rather than private speech. The question then becomes if the government-sponsored speech endorses or advances religion, which would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

After another thorough review of applicable law, the opinion states that given this fact pattern, students may take home consent forms from school for their parent or guardian to sign, permitting the school to release the student for religious instruction.

Scenario 4: Course descriptions — If a district offers credit for released time religious instruction high school classes, may the course description be included in the district’s course description materials?

The answer to whether this scenario would be constitutional rests heavily on whether the district includes descriptions of other courses offered by nonschool-sponsored entities (for example, courses offered through the College Credit Plus program). If the district has included descriptions of other nonschool-sponsored courses for which credit can be awarded, the district may not prohibit including a description of a released time religious instruction course simply because the course is taught from a religious viewpoint.

The opinion suggests that if a released time religious instruction course is the only type of course provided by a nonschool entity for which a student may be given credit, the district could include a disclaimer. A statement that the school does not endorse the views presented in the course may minimize the impression that the district is endorsing religion. This, however, is no guarantee that a court would view the practice to be constitutional.

May a public school district prohibit students from inviting fellow students to released time religious instruction or from distributing literature for a released time course during noninstructional time while on school property?
For this question the opinion assumes that the district prohibition applies to direct student-to-student interactions as opposed to addressing many students at once, such as schoolwide announcement.

According to the opinion, this speech is private student speech that is governed by long-established case law. As we have heard over time, neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The opinion states that a district may not prohibit this speech unless it can be shown that it causes a material and substantial disruption to schoolwork or infringes on the rights of others.

May a public school district prohibit community members — whether or not part of the organization offering released time religious instruction — from encouraging students to recruit their friends to enroll in released time classes?
The opinion did not spend much time resolving this question. Per statute, board authority to adopt rules and policies related to conduct is limited. Board rules and policies must be necessary for the governance of employees, students and other individuals entering school grounds. As such, school boards have no authority to regulate the speech or conduct of community members who are not school employees, particularly when the speech or conduct happens off school property.

May a public school district prohibit its employees, outside of their working hours, from encouraging public school students to attend, or discouraging them from attending, released time religious instruction classes?
In analyzing this question, it is important to understand that public employers cannot condition employment on the employee forgoing their constitutional rights. At the same time, public employers do need to have “a degree of control over their employees’ words and actions.” As such, the government may restrict the speech of its employees to a degree that it cannot for private citizens who are not employees.

A three-pronged analysis based on case law is used to determine whether a public employer may restrict the speech of an employee: if the subject of the speech is a matter of public concern; if the employee spoke as a private citizen; and if the employee’s interest in speaking outweighs the government’s interest in restricting the speech to preserve its efficient operation.

Speech is considered a matter of public concern “when it can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, or is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.” It also is determined from the content, form and context of a statement. The OAG opinion resolved that given the facts provided, the speech “likely” involves a matter of public concern.

Regarding the second prong, generally a public employee is not considered to speak as a private citizen if the statements are made in their professional capacity. Courts look to the content and context of the speech in addition to who the statement was made to in order to determine whether the speech was made pursuant to official duties. Whether the speech was made in or out of the workplace and whether it was during work hours are relevant but not dispositive factors. As the OAG opinion points out, this determination is dependent on the facts of each unique situation, therefore the opinion states that it is unable to determine if a situation in which a public school employee’s speech encourages or discourages participation in released time religious instruction courses is speech made as a private citizen.

The third prong addresses whether the employee’s interest in speaking outweighs the government’s interest in restricting the speech. This also turns on the facts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has provided the following considerations when balancing these interests:

whether an employee’s comments meaningfully interfere with the performance of his or her duties;
whether the comments undermine a legitimate goal or mission of the employer;
whether the comments create disharmony among co-workers;
whether the comments impair discipline by superiors;
whether the comments destroy the relationship of loyalty and trust required of confidential employees.

The opinion notes that it is possible, given the facts provided in this question, for a board’s interest in avoiding a constitutional violation to outweigh the employee’s interest in speech discouraging or encouraging participation. However, it is careful to note that only a court may determine if a policy is constitutional. In the end, OAG concludes that a district may not prohibit an employee from encouraging students to attend or discouraging students from attending released time religious instruction classes if the employee makes the statements as a private citizen and the employee’s interest in making the statement outweighs the district’s interest in promoting the efficiency of the services it performs through its employees.

Policy implications
The primary OSBA policy impacted by the recent OAG opinion discussed in this article is JEFB, Released Time for Religious Instruction. We addressed the issue of released time for religious instruction through Policy Development Quarterly (PDQ) in 2014 and again in November 2017. In the 2017 issue, we revisited the specific policy requirements set forth in RC 3313.6022 and removed some language from the policy that we determined to be potentially problematic for districts. Some of the language removed was similar to language addressed/questioned in OAG Opinion 2019-015.

In light of the determinations in the new OAG opinion, we have reviewed the policy again, and it remains compliant with the law and opinion. This policy is not required. However, many districts have adopted this policy to guide their practices in this area. If your district has adopted this policy, you will want to ensure it is consistent with the current OSBA model policy, which is included with this PDQ issue for informational purposes. If it is not, you should update the policy. Please note that we added some information on the OAG opinion in the notes section, added a legal reference and cross-referenced Policy KJA, Distribution of Materials in the School.

Districts also should review Policy KJA, Distribution of Materials in the School (version 1), and KJA, Distribution of Materials in the School (version 2). These are not required policies, but many districts have adopted one of the two available versions. Version 1 allows for the distribution of materials and specifically addresses required approvals, types of material restrictions and legally compliant content limitations. With this choice, the district creates a limited public forum. As such, the district must allow for the presentation of materials related to released time for religious instruction, just as it would allow for the presentation of other nonschool-sponsored materials by other nonschool-sponsored entities.

Version 2 of this policy disallows distribution of flyers and promotional materials from nonschool-sponsored groups. This fact pattern was not specifically addressed in the OAG opinion. We have included both versions of KJA in this PDQ issue for informational purposes.

Again, make sure to review your local district policies to ensure that they are consistent with the current OSBA model policies provided in this issue. If you have district-specific legal questions related to this topic, we encourage you to work with your board counsel.

Return to top

Recent Ohio attorney general opinion addresses sick leave donation banks

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

Ohio Attorney General (OAG) Opinion 2019-14 provides guidance to districts on sick leave donation programs for nonteaching employees who are not covered by a negotiated agreement. The opinion states, “The board of education of a joint vocational school district has no authority to establish a sick leave donation program for nonteaching employees of the district who are not members of a collective bargaining unit.” While the opinion was requested for a specific type of district (joint vocational school districts), the opinion applies to all nonteaching, nonbargaining unit school district employees.

Sick leave donation banks are created in a variety of ways, but essentially establish a structure through which employees can donate their sick leave to a pool of leave to be used by employees who may have used all available leaves for an illness. Employees without leave could apply to the bank to use donated leave.

Delving into the opinion, this decision is based on the application of Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3319.141 that states sick leave benefits may be used by the employee for the following purposes (emphasis added in OAG opinion): “absence due to personal illness, pregnancy, injury, exposure to contagious disease which could be communicated to others, and for absence due to illness, injury, or death in the employee's immediate family.” The opinion states: “Because the language limits the acceptable uses of sick leave to an employee’s personal illness or injury, or to an illness, injury, or death of a member of the employee’s immediate family, an appointing authority has no authority to permit employees to use the sick leave benefits for another purpose … . Here, the other purpose is using sick leave for illness or injury that is not personal to the employee who earned the benefit, or for illness, injury, or death that affects a person who is not a member of the earning employee’s immediate family. An appointing authority must have express statutory authority to establish a leave donation program that permits sick leave to be used for purposes other than the statutorily defined permitted uses.” The opinion relies on other cited opinions related to the application of this statute to other situations not specifically listed in similar revised code provisions and situations.

What does this mean for you? Sick leave donation banks already have been questioned as to their allowability for employees when not specifically provided for or established by a collective bargaining agreement. This recent opinion reaffirms this is not an authority a district has outside the collective bargaining process. It also serves as an important reminder to look at other areas outside sick leave banks where you may have applied a greater benefit in regard to use of sick leave by nonunion, nonteaching employees than is specifically authorized by statute.

Policy implications
OSBA model policies do not establish procedures for sick leave donation banks; therefore, no updates to OSBA policies are necessary. However, districts often formalize procedures for staff not covered by a negotiated agreement in board policies or district-level procedures. Use of sick leave is an area some districts may have defined in this way. If your district has developed a local policy or procedure establishing a sick leave donation bank for nonteaching nonunion employees, this process and policy and procedure should be reviewed by district legal counsel as to the authorization for establishment.

Districts also should look to past practice to determine if this is occurring, even if not formalized in writing. An example of this may be when a district has established a sick leave donation bank through the negotiated agreement but also allows nonunion staff, such as a superintendent’s assistant, to participate in the program. In addition, the allowability of these provisions should be run by legal counsel to determine the intersection of the established negotiated agreement provision and the recent OAG opinion.

Return to top

Preparing for the state budget bill and other legislation

by Kyle E. Lathwell, policy consultant

Every two years, the governor introduces a biennial budget proposal setting forth how the state will fund state agencies, programs and public schools. Dedicated mostly to appropriations and funding, it inevitably contains policy changes impacting education. We expect the same with the 2020-21 biennial budget.

Gov. Mike DeWine recently released his budget proposal, House Bill (HB) 166. The bill includes school-funding language, among other things, that will impact school districts around the state. The proposal must pass both the House and Senate and receive the governor’s approval by June 30 to become law.

As it relates to your board policies, we are in a wait-and-see mode. If past practice repeats itself, many policy updates may be required as a result of HB 166 alone. There also will be aspects that do not require updates to OSBA’s model policies but may impact policies unique to your district. You will be provided information on these changes through informational articles. Because the governor has until June 30 to approve the bill, the August Policy Development Quarterly (PDQ) may be delayed. In addition, the issue may be more lengthy than usual, both in terms of articles and policy updates.

Besides HB 166, many other pieces of legislation have been introduced or are currently moving through the legislative process. We are working with the OSBA legislative team to monitor any legislation that may impact policy.

We encourage districts to stay up-to-date with the budget process and watch for weekly updates from the OSBA legislative team. Also, watch for the release of the August PDQ, as it is sure to have important information and policy updates for your district. As you wait, take time to look at this past year’s PDQ issues to ensure you are up-to-date on passed legislation so you are ready to move forward in August.

Return to top

Effective policy management: Tips for success

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

The past 12 months have been busy for PDQ subscribers. A flurry of passed legislation before the 2018 summer break and the lame-duck session created a large volume of policy updates. This has been a busy year, and as we head into a budget cycle, now is a good time to step back and review some best practices for staying up-to-date on policies in a manageable manner.

Effectively using PDQ
There are four PDQ issues a year: February, May, August and November. Each issue provides you with detailed articles explaining recommended policy changes. Also included, when applicable, are informational articles that do not require changes to OSBA model policies but may require action at the local level. Taking time to review these articles will help you better understand the necessary changes to policy and serve as a helpful resource in understanding what new legislation means for your school district operations.

Updated sample policies are provided where applicable with each PDQ issue. Following are a few tips for understanding the different types of policies provided as well as what to do with the samples:

Revised policies/regulations — These policies have substantive changes recommended to the body of the policy:
- Add new language shown in bold type, and delete language in strike-through type.
- The indicated changes are changes to OSBA model policies, so they should be compared to locally adopted policies to ensure any necessary local customization is kept, where applicable and still allowable. Examples include teacher evaluation, student records, extracurricular eligibility and more. As you make these comparisons and changes, reach out to the OSBA policy consultants with any questions.
Required policies — An * indicates a required policy. Even if a policy is not required the changes still are necessary for compliance. If you have the policy in your manual, you need to review the updates to ensure compliance. If you do not have a policy in your manual that is not a required policy, you should consider it as an option. While it may not be required to appear as a board policy, it outlines what you are required to do. Not updating these policies can cause you to be out of compliance with current requirements outlined in the policy.
“Other” policies
- Included for informational purposes and do not require adoption.
- Often provided on topics addressed in articles that do not require changes to OSBA model policies but may require updates to locally customized policies. Providing these current OSBA samples provides districts with an opportunity to compare to locally adopted policies to see if they are current and compliant.
- When changes are made to legal references, cross-references or informational notes, these are not considered substantive changes and, as such, do not require readoption by the board. However, when submitting updates to us, you can request these changes to legal references and cross-references be made to your manual as part of the update process, in which case the updated language will appear there without a new adoption date.
New policies — While not used every issue, this indicates the release of a policy new to OSBA’s master manual. When released, it will be indicated whether it is a required policy. Once again, even if it is not required, districts should still consider the benefits of adding this.
Customize where required — There are times when districts are able to customize policies and when they are required to. We try to clearly indicate this with terminology such as “permissive language” or “choose from one of the following” or “must be customized prior to adoption.” Decisions must be made on these areas prior to adoption by the board and clearly indicated when submitting updates to OSBA for processing. There also may be times when multiple versions of the same policy code are provided. Be sure to select the applicable version to present to the board for adoption. Once again, if you have questions on how to customize these policies, reach out to your OSBA policy consultants. When policies require customization, referencing the accompanying article can help provide guidance in making these decisions.
Downloading policies — You have the option to download all of the policies in one large Word file or just download individual policies.

Are the right people reviewing PDQ? By default, we automatically subscribe the following individuals to receive PDQ: superintendent, treasurer and board members. Many districts request to have additional people subscribed. Additional users can be added through this form. Also, some districts may have unsubscribed from receiving OSBA emails, in which case the PDQ e-newsletter will not be sent. Users will, however, still have access to PDQ through the PDQ webpage at www.ohioschoolboards.org/pdq.

Make sure you are familiar with the PDQ webpage. You access it using your OSBA username and password. When on the page, you can view the past year’s issues by scrolling down the page to find the issue you are looking for. For each issue, you will have access to the articles as well as the sample policies.

Are you taking advantage of our PDQ webinars? We provide a free webinar with each PDQ issue during which we talk through in more detail the recommended changes as well as provide an opportunity for questions. The date and time of this webinar is released with each PDQ issue. These webinars also are recorded and posted for future reference on the PDQ webpage.

Making it work for you
Now that you know how to effectively use your PDQ subscription, what does that look like in the district?

Each local board will have a different procedure for reviewing and updating policies that best meets its district’s needs. However, there are some important tips for success as you evaluate this procedure.

Don’t wait
You should review each PDQ issue when released. Even if an issue is light on policy changes, these changes are still necessary to ensure continued compliance. Staying on top of the policies as they are released makes it more manageable for the board to review them. Some districts are tempted to sit on policy updates and only review them once or twice a year. This presents several significant challenges:

It can cause confusion: There are years when one policy is updated several times in different PDQ issues. If you have held multiple issues, it can be confusing for the board to understand which changes it needs to review.
It can cause delays in processing for updates if districts hold updates and send them to us en masse. This can cause delays in effectively processing your updated manual.
It can put the district out of compliance: Districts that do not adopt updated policies as released will have policies that do not reflect current district obligations. This can cause challenges in several areas, including, but not limited, to district audits and administrators properly carrying out policies in the district.

Consider your timelines
While generally not required, best practice encourages multiple readings of policies. Some districts also use a committee structure to have a policy committee review the changes prior to the whole board considering them. Consider scheduling a policy committee meeting in the month in which PDQ is released so you are prepared to adopt updated policies in a timely manner. Most bills addressed in PDQ take effect within 90 days, which usually gives boards enough time for adoption prior to the requirements taking effect.

Ask for help
We are here for you! If you ever have questions about PDQ or are looking for guidance on a local need, reach out. It is better to ask the questions before adoption rather than after the board adopts something that could present challenges for the district. This is especially important when you want to create something unique to your district or do not want to accept some changes we are recommending. Also, if you are new in your position or role with policy management, we are here to help you. A lot of districts reach out to us with the release of each issue for a quick talk through the changes and whether they apply to their districts. This is especially true for ESCs and joint vocational school districts, as some of the updates may or may not be applicable to them based on their offerings. This assistance is included as a benefit of your PDQ subscription. Consultants can be reached at (614) 540-4000, (800) 589-OSBA, kLathwell@ohioschoolboards.org or khaycox@ohioschoolboards.org.

Board policy is an important part of your district operations. Make sure you take some time, as we currently have a reprieve from significant updates, to make sure you have a firm foundation moving forward to effectively manage policies.

Return to top

Revised policy clarifies membership relationship

by Kenna S. Haycox, senior policy consultant

We continually review and evaluate our sample policies to ensure they are current and effectively communicate requirements. One policy we recently reviewed relates to school board memberships with associations. Policy BJA, Liaison with School Boards Association, helps outline the option districts have under Ohio Revised Code (RC) 3313.87 to join a school boards association and appropriate funds to pay annual dues.

After a closer review, we felt revising the policy was necessary to more accurately reflect the relationship between the National School Boards Association (NSBA), OSBA and its member districts. NSBA is the association for state school boards associations. Once a state school boards association like OSBA joins NSBA, its members are eligible to receive various services, offerings and professional development opportunities from NSBA by virtue of its membership with OSBA.

The updated BJA, Liaison with School Boards Association, is available for download with this PDQ issue.

Return to top