THE MESSAGE BEFORE THE RECORD
HOW LORAIN CITY SCHOOLS BUILDS THE NARRATIVE
By Aaron C. Knapp
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC
INTRODUCTION
WHEN THE STORY IS SHAPED BEFORE THE RECORD IS PRODUCED
There is a point where a public institution stops simply responding to events and begins managing how those events will be understood. That shift is not theoretical. It can be seen in the language used internally, in the way decisions are discussed, and in what is deliberately included or excluded from the written record. From that moment forward, the issue is no longer limited to what happened. The issue becomes how the narrative is constructed, who is controlling it, and whether the public is being given access to the full record behind it.
Public institutions are expected to investigate, document, and communicate. Those functions are meant to work together. The investigation establishes facts. The documentation preserves those facts. The communication explains them to the public. When that sequence is followed, transparency is verifiable. When it is not, communication can begin to replace the record rather than reflect it.
The internal emails obtained through public records requests show that, within Lorain City Schools, communication was not simply a response to events. It was a process that was discussed, refined, and in some cases controlled. The language used in those communications reflects an awareness that written records are subject to disclosure. There are explicit acknowledgments that certain information may not belong in email. There are discussions about how messaging should be framed. There is a clear understanding that what is written becomes part of the public record, and that what is not written may never be reviewed.
See the Email Communication’s Here: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:f8936f37-6f3f-4658-a71b-6b3e753df013
That distinction matters because it affects what the public is able to see. When officials advise that certain details should not be included in email, they are not simply choosing their words carefully. They are determining what will exist as a record and what will not. That decision shapes the evidence available to the public, to oversight bodies, and to the courts.
At the same time, the district has delivered a consistent public message. It has stated that approximately six point seven million dollars in funding has been lost. It has explained that these reductions were unexpected, that contracts had already been finalized, and that significant decisions must now be made. That message has been repeated through town halls, written communications, and public statements. It is structured, consistent, and effective in framing the situation.
The emails show that this message did not develop on its own. It was discussed, refined, and aligned before it was presented. They also raise questions about how key positions, including those responsible for communication itself, were filled, and whether those processes were conducted in a manner that was fully competitive or primarily procedural.
When messaging is coordinated, when documentation is limited, and when outcomes appear to be aligned in advance, the issue is no longer just communication. It is control of the narrative.
And when the narrative is controlled before the full record is produced, transparency is no longer the starting point. It becomes the question.
THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE MESSAGE
WHEN COMMUNICATION BECOMES A FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT
The internal communications obtained through public records requests do not reflect a passive or incidental approach to public messaging. They reflect a structured process involving specific individuals, defined roles, and coordinated discussions about how information should be presented, when it should be presented, and in some instances, what should not be placed into the written record at all.
At the center of that process is the creation and use of the Director of Communications and Community Relations position. That role was not described as a clerical function or a reactive position. It was defined in strategic terms. The language associated with the position references data driven storytelling, measurable engagement strategies, and the need for consistent messaging across the district. Those are not administrative concepts. They are communications strategies designed to shape how information is received and understood by the public.
The emails show that this function did not operate in isolation. It involved coordination between district leadership, administrative staff, and those responsible for public messaging. Communications were not limited to distributing information after decisions were made. They were part of the process itself. Messaging was discussed alongside decision making, not after it. That distinction matters because it shows that communication was integrated into how issues were managed, not simply how they were explained.
Within those exchanges, specific individuals appear repeatedly in discussions about messaging, hiring, and how information should be handled. Their involvement is not incidental. It reflects their role in shaping how the district communicates with the public and how the public record is formed. In several instances, the language used in those emails goes beyond routine coordination. There are direct acknowledgments that certain matters should not be discussed in email. Phrases advising that it may be better not to put something in writing, or to handle discussions outside of email, appear in the record.
That language is significant. Public employees operate within a system where written communications are subject to disclosure under Ohio law. When individuals explicitly recognize that fact and adjust how they communicate as a result, they are not just choosing words carefully. They are deciding what will exist as a public record and what will not.
The same communications also intersect with hiring processes tied to communications and administrative roles. The record reflects discussions that raise questions about how those processes were conducted, how candidates were considered, and whether outcomes were aligned before formal decisions were completed. The presence of multiple candidates in a process does not, by itself, establish competition. The structure of the communications surrounding that process is what determines whether it was open or prearranged.
The emails do not present these issues in abstract terms. They show real time discussions among identified participants. They show awareness of public records obligations. They show coordination in messaging. And they show that communication was treated as a strategic function within the district.
When a public institution develops a communications structure that is integrated into decision making, and when that structure includes discussions about what should and should not be documented, communication becomes more than a function of governance.
It becomes a mechanism that influences both the message and the record behind it.
WHAT THE EMAILS SHOW
LANGUAGE THAT GOES BEYOND SIMPLE COMMUNICATION
The internal communications tied to this role show a district that treats communication as an operating system, not a side function. These are not casual announcements and they are not simple scheduling notes. They show coordination, sequencing, and deliberate planning around how information will be developed, approved, and delivered to different audiences. When a district builds an administrative position around communication and community engagement, the emails that surround that hire become part of the story because they expose how the institution thinks about narrative, trust, and control of information.
The language in the interview task sets the framework. The candidate is instructed to create a presentation that communicates a plan for the district communications department, then immediately given a set of prompts that are not about routine updates but about strategy. The task asks, “How will we communicate proactively to tell our story,” and it asks how the district will engage not only families and students, but community members without children in the system and generational groups with different communication preferences. That wording matters because it reveals an assumption that the district has a “story” that must be told, and that the problem is not simply distributing facts but ensuring those facts land the right way with the right audiences. Communication is described as proactive and intentional. It is framed as a mechanism for shaping perception and strengthening relationships.
That mindset shows up again in the way responsibilities are described. The assignment does not ask the candidate to do everything personally. It instructs the candidate to assign work across specific roles, including Associate Director of Communications, Intercultural Communications Coordinator, and Multimedia Production Coordinator. That is internal architecture. It shows communication is treated like a managed operation with delegated duties, defined lanes, and coordinated outputs. When the district asks a candidate to build that structure as part of the hiring process, the district is telling you that messaging is something they view as engineered. It is planned, distributed across staff, and then reinforced through multiple platforms.
The platform list makes the point even sharper. The task explicitly requires improvement across Dojo, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. That is not a random collection. It is a deliberate cross platform ecosystem designed to reach specific demographics, including parents, students, and community stakeholders who consume information differently. The district is not treating social media as an add on. It is treating it as infrastructure. That is why the phrase “improve our use of social media” is not a vague suggestion. It is a requirement, implying that communication in this system is not simply about posting updates but about increasing effectiveness, consistency, and reach.
The same mindset is reflected in the internal discussion that followed the hiring recommendation. Superintendent Jeff Graham did not just say that a candidate was chosen. He framed the selection as inevitable, using language that closes down debate. He wrote, “It was one of the biggest no brainers of my career.” That kind of phrasing is not a neutral description of a hiring decision. It is rhetorical shielding. It presents the decision as so obvious that questions become unreasonable. Even if the underlying process was legitimate, that type of language functions as a pressure mechanism in a group setting because it signals that disagreement is out of bounds.
Then comes the moment where the emails stop being merely descriptive and start revealing process behavior. When Board member Jay Ferguson asked, “Is there an offset for adding this position,” the question was not answered in a clear, documented way inside the thread you provided. Instead, the response language pivots toward avoiding written record. Jeff Graham wrote, “I’d rather not put anything else in an email because I don’t want to put more in an email.” Barbie Washington then replied, “I’m thinking you don’t want to put anything further in an email,” and Graham confirmed, “Yeah see, you get it.” That sequence is not merely conversational. It shows a mutual understanding that certain discussions should occur outside the written channel. The language is explicit. It is not just caution. It is an instruction, and it is an acknowledgment of compliance.
That is the line where the communications become more than routine internal chatter. It shows awareness that email creates a recorded trail. It shows awareness that topics discussed there can later be examined. And it shows a decision to move the conversation elsewhere. In a private organization, that might be interpreted as ordinary risk management. In a public institution, it carries a different implication because public bodies do not have the same discretion to keep the mechanics of decision making undocumented, especially when those mechanics concern staffing, budgeting, and governance priorities.
This is where your final paragraph becomes the anchor. In a public institution, the communications that reflect how a message is developed are not separate from the message itself. The act of shaping, refining, coordinating, and avoiding documentation is part of the public business. The email record is not only evidence of what officials decided. It is evidence of how they manage information, including when they choose to document and when they choose not to.
That is why this matters beyond the question of whether the hire was proper. The emails show that communication is treated as something built. Messaging is structured, coordinated, and designed for audience impact. And the moment financial questions arose, the language shifts toward avoiding email, which is effectively avoiding a record of the explanation. That is not a throwaway detail. It is the most revealing part of the record because it shows the system working exactly as described. Information is shaped, the presentation is controlled, and the documentary trail is managed.
And in the context of public records, that trail is not optional. It is part of the public’s right to understand how decisions are made.
WHEN DOCUMENTATION BECOMES A QUESTION
THE RECORD THAT EXISTS AND THE RECORD THAT DOES NOT
The most significant issue raised by these communications is not that messaging exists or even that it is planned. Public institutions are expected to communicate. They are expected to organize information and present it in a way that can be understood by the public. That is part of governance and, when done properly, it supports transparency. The issue raised here is narrower and more precise. It is whether the process behind that messaging is fully documented in a way that can be reviewed.
Under Ohio law, the focus is not limited to final statements or formal reports. Ohio Revised Code section 149.43 defines a public record as any record that is kept by a public office and that documents the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of that office. That definition is broad by design. It does not distinguish between polished communications and internal drafts. It does not limit disclosure to final decisions. It extends to the communications that lead to those decisions because those communications are part of how the public office operates.
That means emails, internal discussions, draft statements, and planning conversations are not incidental. They are part of the record. When administrators discuss how to “tell our story,” when they coordinate messaging across platforms, or when they consider how information will be received by different audiences, those communications are documenting the function of the institution. They show how decisions are framed, how information is shaped, and how the public narrative is constructed. Under Ohio law, that process is itself a public activity.
The emails provided in this record introduce a second layer to that analysis. They do not just show that messaging is coordinated. They show an awareness of the record itself. When a superintendent writes, “Long story short, I agree and let’s chat I’d rather not put anything else in an email because I don’t want to put more in an email,” and that statement is acknowledged with “I’m thinking you don’t want to put anything further in an email,” followed by agreement, the issue is no longer just communication strategy. It becomes a question about documentation. It reflects an understanding that email creates a record, and it reflects a choice to limit what is placed into that record.
That matters because public records law does not operate on what might have been said. It operates on what exists. The public cannot request a conversation that was never recorded. It cannot review a discussion that was deliberately moved outside of documented channels. The law provides access to records, not to undocumented decision making. When key discussions are conducted in a way that avoids documentation, the public is left with a partial record. It sees the outcome. It may see fragments of the discussion. But it does not see the full process.
This is not a theoretical concern. It is a structural reality. Courts have consistently held that a public office has an obligation to produce existing records and cannot avoid that obligation through overly narrow interpretations of what constitutes a record. At the same time, the law does not require a public office to create records that do not exist. Those two principles operate together. The public has a right to access the documentation of how decisions are made, but that right is limited to what has been preserved. If parts of the decision making process are not reduced to writing or are moved outside recorded channels, those portions are effectively removed from public view.
In that context, the language in these emails takes on greater significance. It is not simply informal phrasing. It reflects a decision point about how the record will be created. The statement “I’d rather not put anything else in an email” is not just about convenience. It is about limiting the written trail. When that approach is shared and acknowledged among multiple officials, it suggests that at least some portion of the discussion is intentionally occurring outside the documented record.
That is where the public records question becomes unavoidable. If the communications that shape policy, staffing, or financial decisions are not fully documented, then the public cannot evaluate the reasoning behind those decisions. It cannot see what alternatives were considered. It cannot see how concerns were addressed or whether they were addressed at all. It sees the final statement, but it does not see the path that led to it.
Public accountability depends on that path being visible. The purpose of the Public Records Act is not simply to allow the public to read the final version of a decision. It is to allow the public to understand how that decision was reached. When documentation is incomplete, that purpose is only partially fulfilled.
That is why the question raised by these communications is not whether messaging exists. It is whether the full process behind that messaging is reflected in the record that the public can access. Because under Ohio law, the public can only review what exists. And when the record is incomplete, the understanding of the decision is incomplete as well.
THE MESSAGE PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC
A CONSISTENT AND CONTROLLED NARRATIVE
The public explanation has not changed. Across meetings, written updates, and direct communications to the community, the district has presented the same core position. The loss of approximately six point seven million dollars is identified as the central issue. The reduction is described as unexpected. The timing is framed as disruptive because contracts had already been finalized. The resulting decisions are presented as necessary, not optional.
That level of uniformity is not accidental. It reflects a coordinated communication effort directed from within the administration. It reflects decisions about what information is emphasized, what context is included, and how that information is delivered to the public. The language is consistent because it is being repeated intentionally. The explanation is stable because it has been structured, reviewed, and reinforced across multiple channels.
The internal communications show how that message was built. Messaging is not treated as a simple act of informing the public. It is discussed in terms of alignment, consistency, and delivery. There is an emphasis on ensuring that all communications present the same explanation, regardless of whether the message is delivered in a meeting, in writing, or through direct responses to the community. The goal is not just accuracy. The goal is consistency of presentation.
That approach is reflected in the language used by those involved in the process. Messaging is described as something that must be coordinated, refined, and managed. There is a clear focus on how information will be received, not just what information is being shared.
In one exchange,the superintendent wrote, “Long story short, I agree and let’s chat I’d rather not put anything else in an email because I don’t want to put more in an email.”
That statement does not address the content of the message. It addresses how the communication itself should occur. It reflects an awareness that email is a record, and that certain discussions are better handled outside of that record. When that perspective appears in the context of coordinated messaging, it raises a straightforward question. Which parts of the decision making process are being documented, and which parts are not.
The result of that process is a message that appears stable from the outside. The explanation does not shift. The reasoning does not change. The framing remains the same regardless of the setting. That consistency creates clarity for the public, but it also limits what the public sees. When a message is presented in a controlled way, it highlights certain aspects of a situation while leaving others less visible.
The emails show that this process was not informal. It was discussed, coordinated, and implemented by identifiable individuals within the district. Superintendent Jeff Graham, members of district administration, and those involved in communications were not simply responding to events as they occurred. They were actively shaping how those events would be presented to the public.
That distinction matters because the public message is not the full record. It is the final version of that record. It is the product of internal discussions, revisions, and decisions that are not always reflected in the same way in publicly available documents. The public sees the conclusion. It does not automatically see the process that produced it.
And that is where the issue begins.
Because when the message is consistent, structured, and controlled, the question is no longer just what is being said. The question becomes whether the underlying documentation supports that message, and whether the public has access to the full record that would allow it to be evaluated.
WHERE THE RECORD SHOULD EXIST
DOCUMENTATION THAT DEFINES THE CLAIM
When a public school district tells the community that it has lost approximately six point seven million dollars in funding, that figure is not a talking point. It is not a general estimate. It is a representation of a specific financial condition, and by definition it must be grounded in records that exist before the statement is ever made public. A number of that scale does not appear without analysis. It requires data, it requires internal review, and it requires communication between the individuals responsible for managing and explaining the district’s finances.
“A number of that scale does not exist without a record that supports it.”
That process leaves a record. It has to. Funding changes are communicated from outside entities. State allocations, federal adjustments, and county level funding decisions are not conveyed informally. They are transmitted through official notices, guidance documents, and direct communications to the district. Those communications should exist, and they should show when the district was notified, what the reductions were, and how those reductions were calculated. Without those documents, there is no way to verify when the district first became aware of the change or how the figure was determined.
Inside the district, that information does not remain static. It is analyzed. Financial staff prepare projections. Scenarios are evaluated. Budget impacts are calculated across staffing, programming, and operations. Those analyses are not optional. They are necessary for decision making, and they are relied upon by administration when determining how to respond. That work produces spreadsheets, memoranda, presentations, and internal summaries. Each of those documents is part of the record that defines what the district is claiming.
At the same time, the information is not only analyzed. It is translated. It is prepared for public presentation. The language used to describe the reduction, the explanation of its timing, and the framing of its impact are all developed through communication. That process also creates records. Emails, draft statements, revisions, and internal discussions all reflect how the district chose to present the information to the public. Those communications are not separate from the financial claim. They are part of how that claim is conveyed and understood.
That distinction matters. There is a difference between having data and explaining data. Both processes are documented. Both are subject to review. When a district presents a consistent explanation across multiple platforms, that consistency reflects coordination. It reflects decisions about what to emphasize, what to clarify, and what to leave out. Those decisions do not occur in isolation. They occur through communication, and those communications are themselves public records.
None of these documents are created in response to a public records request. They are created in the normal course of operations. They exist because the district cannot function without them. Financial decisions require documentation. Public messaging requires preparation. Administrative actions require coordination. Each of those functions produces records that define the claim being made to the public.
If those records exist, they can be produced. They can be reviewed, compared, and evaluated against the statements that have been made publicly. They can show when the district knew, how the figure was calculated, and how the message was developed. They provide the context that allows the public to understand not just the conclusion, but the process that led to it.
If those records are incomplete, missing, or inconsistent, then the process is not fully visible. The public is left with the final statement, but not the documentation that supports it. And when a financial claim of this magnitude is used to justify decisions that affect staffing, programming, and the structure of the district itself, the absence of that record is not a minor issue. It is the difference between a statement that can be verified and one that cannot.
WHY THIS LED TO A NEW REQUEST
SEEKING THE PROCESS, NOT JUST THE RESULT
The gap between the message and the record is what led to a new public records request. It did not arise from speculation. It arose from what is visible in the district’s own communications and what is not. When a narrative is presented with clarity and consistency, but the underlying documentation is not equally visible, the only way to evaluate that narrative is to request the records that support it.
This request is not open ended. It is not a broad demand for all records. It is tied directly to what the district has already told the public. It is based on the statements that have been made, the explanations that have been repeated, and the internal communications that show how messaging is discussed and developed. The request follows the record that should exist if those processes occurred as described.
The scope is specific. It seeks communications maintained by identifiable custodians within the district, including the Superintendent, the Treasurer, Human Resources, and the Director of Communications and Community Relations. These are the individuals responsible for financial decision making, personnel actions, and public messaging. If the process exists, it exists within their communications.
The request targets identifiable categories of records. It seeks communications related to messaging, communications planning, engagement strategy, and public presentation. It seeks discussions related to budget reductions, levy planning, and how those issues are explained to the community. It is not asking what the district said. It is asking how the district decided what to say.
“Public records do not begin with the final statement. They begin with the discussions that produced it.”
The request also seeks the documentation that defines the financial claim itself. It requests records that identify the source of the reported funding reduction, including communications from funding authorities, internal analyses, projections, and any materials used to calculate or support the stated figure. If the district has lost approximately six point seven million dollars, there must be records that show how that number was determined.
This is not an attempt to create a record. Public records law does not require the creation of new documents. It requires the production of records that already exist. The request is directed at records that should have been generated as part of the district’s normal operations. Financial analysis produces documentation. Administrative decision making produces communication. Messaging produces drafts and discussion. Those records exist independently of any request.
The purpose of the request is not to challenge a statement. It is to evaluate it. Without the underlying record, the public is limited to the final version of events. With the record, the public can examine the process that produced that version. That distinction is not procedural. It is fundamental to transparency.
Because when a public institution presents a conclusion, the public is entitled to see how that conclusion was reached.
THE LEGAL STANDARD
WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES
Ohio law does not define public records narrowly. It defines them in terms of function. Under Ohio Revised Code section 149.011(G), a public record includes any document, device, or item, regardless of physical form or characteristic, that is created or received by or comes under the jurisdiction of a public office and that serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the office. That definition is not limited to formal reports or final statements. It reaches the full scope of how a public office conducts its business.
That includes emails. It includes draft documents. It includes internal discussions about how information is developed, refined, and presented. If a communication reflects how a decision was made or how a message was constructed, it is part of the record. The format does not change that obligation. Whether the communication is formal or informal, whether it is labeled as a draft or a final version, the determining factor is whether it documents the activity of the office.
“Public records are defined by what they document, not how they are labeled.”
The Ohio Public Records Act, set out in Revised Code section 149.43, requires that public records be made available for inspection and copying within a reasonable period of time. The obligation is not discretionary. It is a statutory duty. When a request is made for identifiable records, the public office must either provide those records or identify a specific legal exemption that justifies withholding them. General objections or blanket denials are not sufficient. The law requires a clear explanation tied to the specific record being withheld.
The law also recognizes that the process itself matters. A public office cannot avoid disclosure by choosing not to document its decisions. At the same time, it cannot conduct official business in a way that deliberately circumvents the creation or retention of records. When decisions are made, when policies are developed, and when communications are coordinated, those activities generate records that fall within the scope of the statute.
That principle has been reinforced through Ohio case law. Courts have consistently held that records cannot be withheld simply because they are preliminary, because they are internal, or because they reflect deliberation. If the record documents the activities of the office, it is subject to disclosure unless a specific, applicable exemption applies. The burden is on the public office to justify withholding, not on the requester to prove entitlement.
This standard applies directly to the type of communications at issue here. Emails discussing messaging, drafts of public statements, internal conversations about how information is presented, and communications regarding financial analysis all fall within the definition of a public record if they document the operations of the district. They are not outside the law because they are part of the decision making process. They are within the law because they are part of that process.
If a communication exists, it is subject to disclosure unless a specific exemption applies. If a record is withheld, the law requires that the exemption be identified and explained. Transparency is not optional. It is the default position under the statute.
If the communication does not exist, then a different issue arises. It means that the process that led to the public message is not fully documented. The public is left with the outcome, but not the record that explains how that outcome was reached. And when the law is designed to provide access to the workings of government, the absence of that record is not a procedural detail. It is a limitation on the public’s ability to understand and evaluate the decisions that have been made.
FINAL THOUGHT
A MESSAGE WITHOUT A RECORD IS ONLY A STATEMENT
Lorain City Schools has communicated its position to the public. It has explained its challenges. It has presented a consistent narrative about funding, timing, and the decisions that must follow. The message is structured, repeated, and delivered across multiple platforms in the same form. From the outside, it appears complete, organized, and settled.
But a message is not the same as a record. A statement explains. A record proves.
The question is not whether the district has communicated. It clearly has. The question is whether the documentation behind that communication is equally visible, equally complete, and equally consistent. Because in a public institution, transparency is not measured by how effectively something is said. It is measured by whether it can be examined, tested, and verified against the record that supports it.
“Transparency is not what is said. It is what can be shown.”
That distinction becomes more important when the stakes are this high. The district is asking the community to accept a financial reality that will affect staffing, programming, and the structure of the schools themselves. It is asking the public to trust that the numbers are accurate, that the timing was unavoidable, and that the decisions being considered are necessary. Those are not minor claims. They are the foundation for what comes next.
And they come at a time when the district is already under scrutiny. Lorain City Schools has repeatedly been identified as financially distressed. It has ranked near the bottom of the state in performance metrics. It has been described by its own data as operating under significant financial pressure. At the same time, questions have been raised about administrative structure, staffing decisions, and whether resources are being directed toward classrooms or concentrated at the top.
That context matters. Because when a district is described as financially strained, and at the same time continues to expand or maintain administrative positions, the public is entitled to ask how those decisions align with the financial narrative being presented. When messaging is coordinated and consistent, and when that messaging is used to justify significant operational changes, the underlying record becomes the only way to evaluate whether the explanation matches the reality.
This is not an isolated question. It is part of an ongoing examination of how the district operates. Prior reporting has examined financial claims, administrative hiring, and the structure of decision making within Lorain City Schools. This investigation continues that work by focusing on how information is developed, how it is presented, and whether the record that supports it is being made available to the public.
Because the issue is not simply whether the district is facing challenges. The issue is how those challenges are being documented, explained, and verified. A consistent message can create clarity, but it can also limit what is visible. It can highlight certain facts while leaving others in the background. Without access to the full record, the public cannot determine which is which.
The law does not limit the public to the final statement. It provides access to the records that explain how that statement came to be. Emails, drafts, financial analyses, and internal discussions are not separate from the public narrative. They are the process that created it. Without those records, the public is left with a conclusion that cannot be fully tested.
And that is where the issue remains.
Because when a district presents a number, a plan, and a justification for that plan, the public is not required to accept it at face value. The public is entitled to see the documentation that supports it. It is entitled to review the process that produced it. It is entitled to understand how decisions were made, not just how they are described after the fact.
Until that record is produced, the most important part of the process remains unseen.
And when the issue involves public money, public schools, and the future of an entire district, what remains unseen is not a minor gap. It is the part of the story that determines whether the message is accurate, or whether it is simply presented that way.
RELATED REPORTING
https://lorainpoliticsunplugged.substack.com
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This article is based on public records and documented communications obtained through lawful requests. All individuals are presumed innocent of any alleged misconduct unless proven otherwise. This publication is for informational and journalistic purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
COPYRIGHT
© 2026 Knapp Unplugged Media LLC. All rights reserved.
About The Author
