Reason #15 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3 CLICK THIS TEXT TO VISIT THIS BLOG'S CURRENT SITE

Because it fails technically as a constitutional amendment, Part III.

Read Part I here (Reason 18) and Part II here (Reason 16).

In this reason, we will tackle the intro to the two graphs that appear to be designed to delineate who is and is not eligible for the scholarships and tuition grants that the Board of Regents will be required to award, pursuant to this proposed amendment. Because despite what you may have heard, some kids who live and attend school in Ohio will in fact not be eligible. We of course don't know which ones those will be yet since the General Assembly has to come up with laws to enact the amendment and the Board of Regents is required to establish eligibility criteria. We think. Or so it says. Just before it says "Such scholarships and grants shall include only the following:" But I'm jumping ahead.

[NB: A variety of iterations regarding Ohio Learn and Earn make statements like, "in a short time we can provide almost a billion dollars a year for every student to attend any in-state Community College, 4 year College or technical school. It's guaranteed in every student's name by the Ohio constitution, so unlike the lottery the politicians can't touch it." This wording comes directly from a flyer I received in the mail, touting Issue 3 as a way to fulfill the American Dream of sending your child to college.

The implication? That OLE can provide a billion dollars a year for every student! How cool is that? Eh, just bad copy, really.

So, really, the implication? That every single child in Ohio will get (some amount of) this money.

That implication is absolutely, positively, without question, not supported by the text of the amendment. Furthermore, there's a footnote on the billion dollars that says $852.6 million. Last time I checked, 852.6 was closer to 750 - which would be three-quarters of a billion - than it is to 1 billion. But what's 150 million dollars between hard-working, tax-paying Ohioans?]

Okay.

So - you have your full amendment text here. And I'm going to re-type the graphs we're looking at in this reason. The bolded portion is the subject of Reason #15. I'll deal with each of the criteria-setting paragraphs in the next two reasons.

Eligibility criteria for such scholarships and grants, and the amounts, shall be established solely by the Ohio Board of Regents. Such scholarships and grants shall include only the following:

(A) Individual learn and earn scholarship accounts for current and future students who, prior to enrolling in college, take core and advanced academic courses, participate in college readiness programs, assessment, and testing at any accredited public or non-public high school in this state, and contribute to public life through voluntary civic activity, and who attend any public or independent not-for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state.

(B) For the first twelve such high school graduating classes, uniform tuition grants, in an amount not to exceed the average undergraduate tuition charged by Ohio public universities, shall be awarded to the top five percent of students at each accredited public and non-public high school who attend any public or independent not for-profit institution of higher education authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents and that has its principal office within this state. Such tuition grants shall be based solely on academic merit.

The problem with the bolded language is that the first sentence and the first partial phrase contradict one another to the extent that the amendment is impossible to implement constitutionally.

The first sentence states, in what one would think would be unequivocal language, that "Eligibility criteria for such scholarships and grants, and the amounts, shall be established solely by the Ohio Board of Regents." Solely. I am stuck on solely cause solely's stuck on you.

Okay. Cool. Solely. Solely means, "entirely: without any others being included or involved."

As in, no one else, no other entity, will establish the eligibility criteria.

But then, whoa! What's the very next phrase?

"Such scholarships and grants shall include only the following:"

Well, what the hell is that? as Steve Martin and Bill Murray might ask.

Looks to me, again, like horrific legal writing. Either someone slapped two drafts together and didn't edit the unified draft, or someone deliberately put a specific and obvious conflict of language into the amendment (thereby making it a highly litigious section) or no one cared enough to resolve the conflict, even if they saw it.

Questions:

Does the Board of Regents get to ignore these restrictions on eligibility outlined in the amendment (re: "such scholarships and grants shall include only the following") because the prior sentence ("Eligibility criteria for such scholarships and grants, and the amounts, shall be established solely by the Ohio Board of Regents") grants the Regents sole authority to determine eligibility criteria?

Or, is it simply untrue that the Regents in fact will have sole authority to determine eligibility criteria? I mean, legally speaking, if a Regent wants to disregard the amendment, they could - the amendment says they have sole authority to create criteria.

But, then again, maybe the drafters intended that the Regents will adopt the criteria outlined in the amendment, despite the fact that the amendment says the Regents have sole authority to establish criteria.

The most plausible explanation I can think of is, once again, really crappy writing.

What proponents probably intended was to say that the Regents have the authority to establish the eligibility criteria, SO LONG AS those criteria cover all the criteria stated in graphs (A) and (B).

Of course, then, that means that the Regents really don't have sole authority, since the amendment itself provides all kinds of restrictions. Proponents, I imagine, would argue that yes, it's poorly drafted. But the idea is that the Regents can say whatever they want re: eligibility, so long as they include everything in these two paragraphs (and, of course, further define what's in those two graphs, since what's in those two graphs is horrifically inadequate as far as specifics - there's simply no uniformity around the state as to nearly everything in those graphs).

To conclude:

The proposed amendment language purports to give the Regents authority to establish eligibility criteria. But then the language goes on to outline criteria that must be met.

Drafting language in this way sets up a conflict that can be seized on by Ohioans to the point of making those scholarships never materialize.

As an Ohioan, frankly, I want back whatever public money got spent on drafting this proposed language.

Vote no on Issue 3.

Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:

Reason 16
Reason 17
Reason 18
Reason 19
Reason 20
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57

Vote no on Issue 3.