By Ronda Watson Barber
Publisher, OhioMBE
Over the past several months, I have exchanged emails with Columbus City Schools regarding Griffin Field and Eastmoor Academy. I’ve communicated with the Public Records Office, Superintendent Angela Chapman, and Board President Antoinette Miranda.
I appreciate that they responded.
Unfortunately, after reading every response, reviewing every document they provided, and asking what I believe are straightforward questions, I’m left with more questions than answers.
Let’s start with what actually happened.
In response to my public records request, the district provided me with its December 20, 2024 Athletic Assessment.
In that same response, the district also informed me that Eastmoor/Griffin Field is not being considered for Summer 2027 planning.
Think about that for a moment.
On one hand, the district gave me a document showing that Eastmoor Academy ranked as the district’s lowest-rated athletic facility. The assessment placed Eastmoor in Priority Level 1, indicating the greatest need for improvement.
On the other hand, in the very same response, the district stated that Eastmoor would not be considered for Summer 2027 planning.
Naturally, I asked the obvious question.
What changed?
Not because I believe Eastmoor should automatically move to the front of the line.
Not because I oppose improvements at other schools.
But because when the district provides a document identifying one facility as its highest priority for improvement while simultaneously saying that same facility is not moving forward, taxpayers deserve an explanation.
Instead, I’ve received responses filled with phrases like:
“Highly complex process.”
“Financial considerations.”
“Legal review.”
“Project feasibility.”
“Multiple stakeholders.”
Those phrases sound impressive.
They just don’t answer the question.
What financial considerations?
What legal issues?
What feasibility concerns?
Who are the stakeholders?
Without context, those statements simply ask the public to accept the conclusion without understanding the facts behind it.
Then there is another statement that continues to concern me.
Earlier, the district advised me that “The criteria used to prioritize facility improvements across the district is still being finalized and refined.”
That statement should concern every taxpayer.
If the criteria are still being finalized and refined, then how are decisions involving millions of taxpayer dollars already being made?
What standards are currently being used?
Who determines which schools move forward while others wait?
What objective metrics matter most?
Those aren’t “gotcha” questions.
They’re governance questions.
They’re the kinds of questions every Board of Education should expect from the public when millions of taxpayer dollars are involved.
Both Superintendent Chapman and Board President Miranda have emphasized the district’s commitment to being good stewards of taxpayer resources.
I couldn’t agree more.
But good stewardship is about more than writing checks.
It’s about having a transparent, well-defined process for deciding where those checks are written.
If the prioritization framework is still being finalized, how can the district confidently determine which projects should move forward today?
More importantly, when will that framework be completed?
When will it be presented publicly to the Board of Education?
When will taxpayers have the opportunity to understand how these decisions are being made?
I’ve also asked another question that remains unanswered.
Have Superintendent Chapman or members of the Board personally toured Griffin Field as part of this review?
I ask because my perspective isn’t based on rumor or a social media post.
I am a certified AAU, USATF, and OHSAA Track & Field official, and I have officiated track meets at Eastmoor Academy over the years. I’ve spent time on the track, around the infield, and throughout the facility while working athletic competitions.
Based on that firsthand experience, I can honestly say this:
I would not feel comfortable sitting in portions of that stadium as a spectator.
In my opinion, the current conditions are unacceptable and raise legitimate concerns regarding the safety and comfort of students, spectators, officials, families, and visitors.
Has the district conducted a recent safety assessment of Griffin Field?
If so, what were the findings?
If safety was part of the review, how did it factor into the decision to defer the project?
Those questions have never been answered.
To be clear, I appreciate that Superintendent Chapman and President Miranda took the time to respond. Many public officials don’t.
But responding isn’t the same as answering.
I can only evaluate this issue based on the information the district has chosen to provide. I don’t know what is discussed in internal meetings. I don’t know what conversations occur behind closed doors. I can only rely on the district’s written responses, the public records it has produced, and the official statements it has shared.
Based on those records, my questions remain.
The Eastmoor community isn’t asking for confidential legal advice.
Taxpayers aren’t asking the district to negotiate in public.
We’re asking for transparency.
We’re asking the district to explain how it reached a decision that appears inconsistent with the very assessment it chose to provide.
Public trust isn’t built by asking the community to be patient.
It’s built by explaining the process.
Because transparency isn’t measured by how many emails are sent.
It’s measured by whether the public walks away understanding the decisions that were made.
Right now, after months of correspondence, I still don’t.
Ronda Watson Barber is Publisher of OhioMBE, Ohio’s largest Black-owned business newspaper, and Founder of the Ohio Business Development Center. She writes about education, government accountability, supplier diversity, and public policy.
Related Stories
Discover more from
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.