Over and over for years, the Northridge Local School District Board of Education has been told to fix the unusual management structure for its superintendent and treasurer, a structure that has been in place more than a decade.
The board has heard it from its lawyer, from consultants, from its superintendents and from district residents that the delineation of duties does not follow state law or the board’s own policies – and that it has created an environment for friction and tension between the treasurer and superintendent.
And now, by virtue of the treasurer being assigned duties for which the superintendent is responsible, the treasurer is facing an ethics complaint.
Wrapping up the latest annual financial review of the 1,200-student Northridge district, between Johnstown and Utica, Ohio Auditor Keith Faber sent a letter dated March 5 to district officials saying that his office would refer to the Ohio Ethics Commission a “noncompliance finding” involving district Treasurer Britt Lewis.
The auditor’s office raised concerns about Lewis being involved in the hiring of his wife, Carley Lewis, as the food service director for the rural Licking County district – and that Mrs. Lewis “reports to the assistant treasurer and to the superintendent to remain independent of the treasurer.”
But because human resources – and food-service employees – are under the treasurer’s office, Superintendent Kristine Michael, who is retiring in June, said in an interview that Mrs. Lewis does not report to her and never has.
The auditor’s letter to the district noted that Mr. Lewis was among those who, in 2019, signed a five-year employment contract for Mrs. Lewis, who had been a custodian in the district before being hired for the food-service job.
Northridge-Local-School-District-management-letter-March-5-2025The auditor wrote that Ohio law says, “in part, public officials and employees cannot: (a) hire or use their positions to secure employment for their family members; (b) recommend or nominate their family members for public jobs with their own, or any other, public agencies; or (c) give to their family members or solicit or use their positions to secure for their family members, raises, promotions, job advancements, overtime pay or assignments, favorable performance evaluations, or any other things of value related to their employment.”
The state auditor wrote that “failure to ensure school district management is independent during hiring employees, from vendors and all other related party transactions could result in the school district entering contracts that might not be in their best interest.
“The school district should take appropriate steps to verify that management is independent during all transactions and policies and procedures are in place to detect and appropriately address any conflicts of interest,” the auditor wrote. “This matter will be referred to the Ohio Ethics Commission.”
An ethics commission investigator said on April 4 that, by law, the ethics commission staff cannot discuss investigations or confirm when it is conducting investigations.
“State auditors noted that Treasurer Britt Lewis’ signature on the employment contract was a concern, which is why it was referred to the Ethics Commission,” said David Roorbach, a spokesman for the auditor’s office. “State auditors will follow up on the ethics issue during the school’s next audit – including reviewing any opinions from the Ethics Commission – and look at what policies and procedures the district has put in place to ensure they are in compliance with the law.”
The auditor’s letter is not the first time the ethics commission has heard this concern, according to two people in the district who told The Reporting Project they also filed ethics complaints.
And it’s not the first time the Northridge Board of Education has heard concerns about the district’s unusual management structure that gives a number of what would normally be the superintendent’s duties to the treasurer – and the challenges that result from it.
Among those challenges, according to Michael and former Superintendent Scott Schmidt, is that Mr. Lewis does not communicate well and sometimes reacts negatively when questioned about his proposals, decisions or how his office functions – particularly when those questions are about things for which the superintendent is technically responsible but has no say in because the board long ago gave those duties to Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis did not respond to several requests for comment, including one by email on Thursday, April 10, and another this morning, April 15, and two phone calls last week and another two this morning. An administrative assistant who answered the district office phone on Friday, April 11, said Mr. Lewis was on vacation until April 15, and that she would forward the request to him. An assistant who answered the phone today also said she would forward the request to Mr. Lewis, who she said was in the office this morning.
All five school board members were contacted by phone for comment last week. Three did not return calls. Two board members who answered their phones declined to discuss the matters and said board policy requires the board president to speak for the board in such instances.
Evelyn Vance, the board president, sent a statement by email that speaks to the ethics complaint but does not address the management structure: “We appreciate the work of the Ohio Auditor of State and the recent management letter shared as part of the annual audit of Northridge Local Schools. The Board takes the feedback seriously, is cooperating fully with the audit process, and views this as an opportunity to continue strengthening our practices.
“We’re proud to share that Northridge remains in strong financial and operational health,” the statement continued. “The items noted in the (auditor’s management) letter do not reflect any financial loss or mismanagement, nor do they impact the quality of education or daily operations in our schools.
“As always, the Board is committed to transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement,” the statement said in conclusion. “We will continue to ensure full compliance with all laws and policies as we work to support our students, staff, families, and community.”
District seeks new superintendent
The ethics complaints come at a time when the district is conducting its third search for a new superintendent in eight years. Michael announced in February that she is retiring in June and will take a superintendent position in Washington state. Her predecessor at Northridge was Schmidt, with whom Michael worked as assistant superintendent until 2023, when he resigned and she was hired for the job.
“It’s a very dysfunctional environment,” Schmidt said in an interview. “The treasurer does not always work well with the superintendent.”
Michael concurred and said in an interview that even though the two have offices in a relatively small, portable classroom building along Rt. 62 between Johnstown and Utica, Mr. Lewis “has not spoken to me since July (2024) outside of scheduled meetings.”
Michael also said that “the superintendent job description says I’m responsible for technology, transportation and food services, but I’m not.”
Superintendents in Ohio typically function as the chief executive officer responsible for academics and district operations, and the treasurer is responsible for financial matters. At Northridge, the board of education has given the treasurer some of the duties that typically would belong to a superintendent – human resources, transportation, technology and custodial and food services.
Shifting those duties to the treasurer put Mr. Lewis in a position for potential conflicts of interest because he and his office, among other things, are responsible for his wife’s position and her department.
Mr. Lewis was hired at Northridge in 2012 after having been treasurer for London City Schools in Madison County.
Mr. Lewis’s title at Northridge is “treasurer/chief financial officer, director of business services & transportation, records request custodian.”
His contract, signed January 2021 for the period of August 2022 through July 2027, calls for $104,952 base pay as treasurer with an additional $3,000 annual increment in recognition of attaining a master’s degree, and a 1.65% annual cost of living raise. In a contract adjustment in November 2024, the cost-of-living raise went up to 3%.
Mr. Lewis also is paid $23,000 annually for duties as director of business services and transportation. According to conversations during board meetings, Mr. Lewis has indicated to the board that he plans to retire from Northridge at the end of his current contract.
Kristine Michael’s five-year contract, signed in June 2023, calls for $145,000 in base pay for the superintendent with $10,000 annual increment for having a doctorate, and a 3% annual cost of living raise.
Management structure concerns persist
The Northridge school board has been told repeatedly that it is not in line with state law and its own district policies regarding organizational structure of duties for the superintendent and treasurer.
Some of the latest concerns were raised by district constituents interviewed by K-12 Business Consulting, which the board hired to conduct a search for a new superintendent. In a draft copy of a “Superintendent Search Profile” obtained by The Reporting Project, under the heading of “Important Issues Facing District,” the first item under “consistent themes” is that “existing dysfunction amongst the Board and district leadership creates mistrust of the leadership team within the district and the community.”
Other issues consistently mentioned to the consultants by stakeholders – including students, parents, district residents, school board members and district employees – include: “District organization chart should align with state law,” “policies and decisions lack transparency to the stakeholders,” “improving the culture, addressing a perception of some biased/unfair/unequal treatments,” “improving communication, both internally and externally.”
In an open letter to the Northridge community on April 5, former school board member Geoff Wiggins said that “in 2023, as board president, I worked to address dysfunction in the district office, much of which stemmed from an unusual and problematic division of responsibilities between the superintendent and treasurer.”
He wrote that the board asked a consultant from the Educational Service Center of Central Ohio to review the situation, and that person recommended “aligning administrator roles with best practices,” and “moving Human Resources to a more independent office under the superintendent’s oversight.
“These changes would have resolved compliance issues, conflicts of interest, and clarified accountability,” Wiggins wrote, adding that current board president Evelyn Vance has been resistant to making management structure changes.
Consultants from AdvantaCORE School Improvement Solutions, of Powell, wrote in a May 2018 “instructional audit report” commissioned by the district that “there is an acknowledgement on the part of the district/school leaders that the district is not grounded in trust and responsibility, and that this has to be addressed and solved.”
The consultants wrote that, “District leaders need to assess their responsibilities within their current roles. Specifically, this refers to the superintendent and treasurer positions. The disruption that this issue causes was evident and prevalent throughout the site visitation. It was made abundantly clear from district leaders, building leaders and teachers that the superintendent is viewed as the leader of the district and, as such, the job responsibilities should reflect this.”
Their report concluded that, “Until this matter is resolved, the district will not be able to address the variety of issues and recommendations contained in the instructional audit necessary for the district to improve its culture and grow the student experience.”
The concerns about structure became a point of contention during the July 16, 2024, school board meeting when Jayma Bammerlin, then the board president, asked the board to address the matter that had been raised a year earlier when Michael was hired as superintendent. Michael had noted in 2023, and said again during the July 2024 meeting, that her contract holds her responsible for duties that had been given to Mr. Lewis, and she asked that those duties be moved to her.
Bammerlin told the board during that meeting, which was recorded and is available on the district’s YouTube channel, that an attorney and a consultant hired by the district each had told the board that “this is your number one thing you need to fix. You need to get into compliance with your policy.”
Board member Vance said during that July meeting that she opposed structuring the duties as outlined by law and district policy, questioning whether Michael could handle all of the responsibilities. Michael assured the board that she is capable.
And board member Doug Hart said that “for the entire term that (Mr. Lewis has) worked for us, he’s reported to the board in all of these various capacities, and we have known all along it does not conform with policy.”
Board member Kate Creager said in the July meeting that just because the district had been doing something for 13 years wasn’t a good reason to continue it if multiple outside sources were telling the board to make changes.
Creager, Bammerlin and Hart agreed during that meeting that the board should work on a plan to transition the superintendent’s duties currently assigned to Lewis back to the superintendent. Nine months later, Michael said, that has not happened.
In 2022, former superintendent Schmidt raised a concern about the potential for at least a perception of a conflict of interest when he sent an email to Mr. Lewis and some board members questioning raises proposed by Mr. Lewis. The largest among the proposed raises, by Schmidt’s calculations, was estimated at 27% – or $10,560 – for Mrs. Lewis. The next two highest were for the assistant treasurer and the treasurer’s office accountant at 16%, or $9,960 each.
“I am concerned that some areas are receiving what appear to be significant raises compared to our old schedule,” Schmidt wrote in 2022, noting in conclusion that, “I just want to make sure we have the supporting research to justify these significant increases. I don’t want us in a position of not being able to provide solid justification should we be questioned by the community or the board.”
Mrs. Lewis’s pay for the 2023-24 school year was $62,125, records show.
Schmidt said in an interview that, based on Ohio law and the advice of the district’s lawyer, the board should restructure the duties of the treasurer and superintendent. But he said board member Hart, the former board president, consistently opposed those suggestions and supported the status quo.
In fact, during the latest board meeting on March 18 – in the face of ongoing questions about the potential conflict of interest with Mr. Lewis’s office being responsible for Mrs. Lewis’s employment – Hart proposed a contract extension for Mrs. Lewis. He did that after criticizing district residents for raising concerns on the Northridge School Board Accountability Facebook page, which is run by an anonymous administrator.
Contract extension proposed
Hart noted that the original five-year contract for Mrs. Lewis had been reduced to a two-year contract, and he wanted to “make Mrs. Lewis whole.” He did not mention that the five-year contract was reduced to a two-year contract after the district’s lawyer told the board that because Mr. Lewis signed Mrs. Lewis’s contract, it was void. A new two-year contract was drawn up to replace it and was signed by Michael and Bammerlin.
“I was shocked by Doug (Hart) lashing out at the Northridge accountability group,” said former board president Wiggins, who said he watched the March meeting via YouTube. “How tone deaf to not listen to your constituents even if you don’t agree with them.”
Wiggins also said that Hart’s proposal to extend Mrs. Lewis’s contract for another three years, “tells us everything we need to know. I don’t think instructions to the superintendent to extend that contract was in the best interest of the district. It was in the best interest of the Lewis family.”
During the meeting, Michael appeared taken aback by the proposal, especially when Hart asked Michael to draw up the contract extension. She responded by indicating she was not inclined to do that and suggested the board could do that on its own.
Hart’s request during the March board meeting came two days before the letter arrived saying the state auditor would refer the Northridge treasurer’s employment of his wife to the state ethics commission.
The school board’s next meeting is at 6:30 p.m. on April 15 at the district office, 6097 Johnstown-Utica Road.
Alan Miller writes for TheReportingProject.org, the nonprofit news organization of Denison University’s Journalism program, which is supported by generous donations from readers. Sign up for The Reporting Project newsletter here.