ROSSFORD – The Rossford Board of Education decided to hire a facilitator Wednesday night, services the
board needed in the two hours that preceded the decision.
The special meeting was called to move along discussions of a building plan, a process the board now says
could take up to two years. The board’s previous plan was defeated by an almost 2-1 margin back in
November.
But disagreement even how to proceed began almost immediately.
Board member Jackie Brown, who voted against the plan that failed in November, insisted that the
facilities and steering committees that would lead the effort to develop a new plan should start with a
clean slate.
She objected to the idea that the board would discuss any details of what they wanted to see in the plan.
All that, she said, was covered in a previous workshop held in January.
Superintendent Susan Lang said the reason for the discussion was to address concerns expressed by
community members who thought the process that resulted in the failed plan was "flawed."
"That’s why we are going to have open forums," Brown said. Any other discussion is "kind
of a waste of our breath."
The role of the facilitator will be to help steer those discussions to arrive at a new building plan.
Board member Brian Hughes said that it was still important that the facilities committee have "a
perspective" on what the board thinks, otherwise "they may go off in a direction the board
doesn’t have in mind."
But if the board dictates too much to the facilities committee "we’re going to be right back at
square one," Brown said.
Ultimately, Hughes countered, it is the school board that needs to approve what plan is put on the
ballot. He also conceded that though he’d advocated previously that any plan should have the approval of
all board members at this point a majority vote may have to suffice.
He said some people thought the process was flawed simply because they didn’t agree with its conclusions.
Board President Ken Sutter said, as an example, that some people felt that one of the positive parts of
the process was visiting other school districts that had recently completed building projects. But, he
said, some people noted that they didn’t visit enough districts that had remodeled buildings.
One of the reasons some people objected to the failed plan was that it called for building a new high
school and junior high at the site of Glenwood Elementary at the intersection of Ohio 795 and Lime City
Road. They wanted to renovate and preserve the high school downtown.
Any plan, Hughes said, has to address three issues – he referred to them later as "litmus
tests."
The first concern is: Does the plan meet student needs? Affordability is the second concern, and third
would be respect for the district’s tradition and history. "We need all three addressed."
Brown added that the plan has to be one that the public would support.
Sutter said that this time the facilities committee may have to look at the location of schools first.
Last time that decision was made at the end of the process.
Hughes said that maintaining neighborhood elementary schools, something else some opponents to the
previous plan wanted, would eliminate any cost savings.
"You can have the best cost savings … if you can’t sell it to the public, it doesn’t make any
difference," Brown said.
"It’s anybody’s guess what the public would support," Hughes said. That’s why the district
needs to survey voters before it formulates a plan.
When the discussion turned to finding a facilitator, Brown snapped at Lang for coming up with names of
possible facilitators. She said the board was supposed to propose names.
Lang said she was just doing her job as superintendent.
Hughes said the person selected should have leadership and interpersonal skills, those being more
important than any technical expertise in education or architecture. Those people can be recruited for
the steering committee.
The facilitator should be someone able to lead the committee "through the quagmire of ideas."
A number of names were discussed, including past and present education officials and professional
educational consultants.
Board member Dawn Burks noted the board needed someone who is willing to stick with the process all the
way through the end.
Treasurer James Rossler suggested the board consider issuing a request for proposals. But in the end the
qualifications didn’t seem firm enough to do that.
Brown reiterated she was concerned about setting too narrow a path for the process.
Lang said the facilitator would be the one to help provide the guidance to how matters should proceed.
Hughes complained about wording in the qualifications for people who would serve on the facilities and
steering committees. He questioned the meaning of the phrase saying the person should not have
"personal agendas."
Brown said the board should just keep the discussion on the facilitator.
At this point, the discussion turned into several voices overlapping and interrupting as Brown and Hughes
went back and forth, and the others tried to steer the discussion back on track.
Burks then suggested replacement wording in which members of the committee would be expected to be
flexible and keep open minds as they worked toward "general consensus."
Hughes asked what she meant by "general."
Rossler and Lang will now be approaching those suggested at the meeting about their interest in helping
facilitate the ongoing discussion.
