001myself on. I'm going to call our uh September, excuse me, December 9th policy meeting to order. Uh Miss Kadeski, would you please Oh, first off, I'd like to uh just uh tell everybody to have a merry Christmas. I do have my Merry Christmas uh tie on. I also have my Hanukkah socks on, so I got it all covered. At least most covered anyway. But I hope everybody has a wonderful holiday season. >> Those are your Hanukkah socks. >> They are. They actually are. Okay. Ask, would you please call the role? >> Pete Wilter. >> I am present. >> David Perry >> here. >> Judy Justice. >> And hopefully Miss Justice is on the way. Um, but we're going to go ahead and start because it is 1:00. Uh I will start with an invocation and
002that will be given by pastor Doug Lane uh pastor of Riceville United Methodist Church and he will be appearing remotely and then I've asked Mr. Perry to lead us in the pledge. Like to welcome Mr. Perry back. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon. I'm Doug Lane, senior pastor at Wrightville United Methodist Church here at Writzville Beach. And it's an honor and a privilege to be able to uh lead you in prayer this afternoon for your um policy committee meeting today. Let us bow our heads. Gracious and guiding God, we gather today today mindful of the responsibility entrusted to this group to nurture, protect, and empower the students of our community. As we meet, grant us clarity of thought, steadiness of purpose, and a spirit that seeks the common good. Bless every child represented in the
003decisions that are made today. May the choices help them to grow in knowledge, character, and confidence. Strengthen the educators, staff, and families who support them each day grant them patience, creativity, and hope in our decisions. Keep us respectful and collaborative. Where we differ, help us to listen well. Where we agree, help us to move forward with courage. And in all things, let wisdom, compassion, and justice guide us. May this meeting be fruitful. And may our work contribute to a brighter future for every student that we serve here in New Hover County. Amen. >> Okay. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. I hope Miss Justice is okay. >>
004Maybe Miss Galler like to sing the anthem while we're waiting. >> That's it. Maybe Miss Geller would like to sing the anthem while we're waiting for Miss Justice. >> Well, uh, we do have a what I would consider a lighter agenda today, which is good, uh, especially this month. But, um, I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda. >> So, motion >> and I will second that. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. That passes. Uh, and I will entertain a motion to to approve the minutes. >> Oh, here she comes. >> Welcome. Welcome. >> Just started out. >> Yes, ma'am. We are just about to approve the minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> I'll second it. I'll let you get settled. >>
005Okay. All in favor of approving the minutes, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> I. >> That passes 300. >> Point of uh order. Um >> sir, >> the I know it would take a supermajority vote, but uh wanted to ask Mr. She did she have any additions or deletions to the agenda that she wanted to add to today's meeting before we already popped in. But >> yeah, I don't just want to make sure you didn't have anything that you want. >> No. Fine. Thank you. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Perry. >> All right. We will carry on. We'll jump right in. Uh we have our first um policy which is policy 2230 board committees. Uh the section we that's been changed in this is B9. Uh so if you take
006a second to look at that uh section B subsection 9 where it talks about um the sub uh where we the red section mentions two board members because we have two board members on the bottom. Uh just adding the two board members to serve on the soil and water conservation committee. Is there any discussion on that? >> Yes sir. Mr. Okay. I I believe at our last meeting there was some discussion as to whether uh we should consolidate the is that does that incorporate those changes? >> It does. It it has a you know it's a sub sustainability uh committee uh basically taking in the uh soil and water committee. So there would be one committee. That's why we uh moved from having uh just the one board member on sustainability to two board members
007so that they can continue to their work on the soil and water conservation committee. At some point we may want to you know take ourselves out of that whole discussion but right now we have you know we we have two members that have been um added to that board uh that to the uh soil and water board. So, >> so >> go ahead, M. Justice. >> Um, the f we've consolidated them >> and so now instead of one member, there's two because of the two different boards being consolidated. What you're saying is the future maybe next year at the beginning we might look at changing that. Uh, well, not next year. Wait a second now. You're about to appoint new people to committees, >> right? >> This might be the right time to do this.
008Well, I mean, that's the thing is if we want to, you know, we could say that we no longer want to serve on the soil and water conservation committee. That would be, you know, an option. We could say, you know, um, and I know this is a little irregular, but we do have one of the members that has served on both of these committees that may give us some insight if if you guys are okay with that. >> Sure. Sure. Yeah. Miss Mason, since you're since you happen to be here and you are on both of those committees, maybe you could give us some insight to whether you think we should continue with the soil and water conservation committee. Miss >> um I remember in some of the discussion that we had at our meeting
009um one of our other board members who also has served on soil and water, Miss Barnhart, um had mentioned that there's some overlap in what happens between sustainability and soil and water. I think that when we had initially um started attending the soil and water um meetings, we that was the the purpose was to get us into a more sustainability type approach with the district and then we created the sustainability committee and that's kind of overlapping. So I think that when um Miss Barnhart had suggested it and I don't want to speak for her um that that when that that would have been eliminating soil and water would make sense because we've now developed kind of our own pathway. Um and I serve on that with Dr. Morgan who has just done a great job
010of really facilitating the conversation. But we have a great group of individuals, staff members, um, community members that are really pouring into it. And some of those have come from our connections within that soil and water, um, >> your term for soil and water. I know you have to be appointed. >> So um, I'd have to look back at the paperwork that they gave us. Um, I believe it's one year, but I might be incorrect. Um, >> but I was I was just wondering because we may want to leave this alone as it is now >> until the term until the term is up and then just just not re >> So I know for me this past year I had to pull back from because I had initially been on the soil and water
011for the previous year um and I had to pull back from that due to family work changes um and so I was unable to attend those meetings. I don't think there was any I think they would welcome me back if I went back. I don't know if there was a specific term. I'd have to go back through the paperwork that that they had, but I don't know if there was. >> Well, Mr. Justice, >> what does it look like to have the so now soil and water stands alone? That that's the county. >> That's a county. And so we sat on that and now Mr. Barnhard suggested that we bring our sustainability committee and to put it together. What? Okay. That see that's where I'm confused. >> Well, I think it my understanding is that
012basically our sustainability committee would be the our our because that's our committee, right? >> And then we would just you would have the two people just work off, you know, in >> continue on with the soil and water is is one option. The other option is we could just sit and have help, you know, send a letter to the soil and water conservation committee and say we no longer are going to participate. >> Well, if I might, I think we can as long as we do it respectfully and and they know the initiatives that we're working on. Um, and it's not that we're trying to separate ourselves from them. Um, we can still have those connections without serving on the committee. Um, I can see both sides as far as being part of of that
013group. I think that, you know, interacting with with those individuals, it's not a it's not a very well-known group and um I think they're doing a lot of really good things and I think they have a lot of educational opportunities that they can help support us with. Um, and they've really showed us, >> at least when I was on there a couple years ago, it it was very informative as to what what is offered and what connections they have. Um, I don't want us to stretch ourselves too thin and do the same thing over and over. It's kind of why when we condensed committees last last year, there was the condensing of the finance bond and capital one. Um, because there was double duty happening with board members and with staff members. And so I
014don't I I would lean toward pulling back from soil and water. That's just my opinion and I'm not a vote voting member of this group. Mr. Okay. Um, Mason, since you're there, um, how often do each of these committees meet? >> Good question. >> So, Soil and Water is typically the first I believe it's the first Wednesday of the month. Um, and their meetings are about as long as ours. Um, they they go into depth about a lot of different things, not just educationally focused. Um, our meetings, we try and do them monthly. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It really um because we do have staff members, we have we have teachers, we have, you know, administrators and so we try and do it monthly. That's the goal. >> Dr. Morgan, >> I
015was just curious since I've not been involved with the soil water are there people from the county who are attending and participating in the sustainability who are also in the soil and water. Initially there was >> okay but >> there is an individual who's no longer >> okay but the other water that is with >> the other county employees that participate they they're not part of that soil and water >> um one I believe still is I believe our sustainability >> I was just curious and the only reason I bring it up was >> I'd have to ask her though >> to justice's point about or what you two are discussing about there's there is some overlap and I think >> saying we will focus on that. There's a respectful way to do that when
016we're still having conversations with some of the same people. But the only other thing I'll say is um to your point, we do try and keep the sustainability committee meetings to an hour. >> That's good. >> Yes. uh after listening to everything I I think that perhaps a good compromise might be um I think it's important for us to hear what's going on uh and for us to have some communication with the thrill and water con and I don't necessarily think we have to be on the committee to keep up that that those lines of communication but at the same time you know being there sometimes you're going to catch a good idea or two so could we possibly my suggestion is that maybe we probably asked them, can we just send one person versus
017two? >> We already are just aren't we? >> I think Mason replaced herself on it. So, there's two. >> Here she comes back. Aren't there two people typically established it, there were two board members that were supposed to be part of it because I was unable to um they accepted a staff member. So, Dr. Hamilton has been participating in mystead. >> I think historically, wasn't it just one member on the soil and water and not two? >> Really? So, my suggestion is that perhaps we could send one of our two people on the um and maybe they could alternate that's on our uh that's on our board uh and send one of them to the meeting so they can catch the drift. Maybe they could just change back and forth. Yeah. >> So, we could
018change that. Keep what we have here and just change. Additionally, one board member will serve on. So, we can change that that two on the bottom to to one. And then, as you say, then they can work together to I can't be there. You could be there back and forth. >> I think that's important. >> It sounds practical. >> Okay. All right. Oh, she's back again. >> Does that mean we have to send it back to change? And >> I I thought we could just do it right here. >> Let's do it. >> All right. Sorry. >> She's back again. >> She must be really hungry. >> Sorry. You starving. I think that if we're going to make that kind of change, we need to talk to soil and water as well because we did
019make that agreement initially to have two members on there. And so if we're going to change it to one, we need to talk with them before we >> Okay. >> We're going to have to vote on this anyway. So I'm >> Right. But we also need to talk with like it's their that's their organization. That's not ours. So, we can't dictate to them how many people because it's there. We're just like it's we're not voting members. >> You have >> I don't Well, >> I've never I don't think so. >> I could be. Don't quote me on that. >> I I might be >> I might Sorry. Thank you about that. I I might be totally wrong here, but originally because I remember years ago, I'm talking about eight uh 1920 20 19 2020. Seems
020to me we only had one >> 2020 >> 2019 19 >> long time. I was like, geez, that's a long time ago. >> 2019 and 2020. >> Got it. >> That was a while ago. I wasn't around yet. >> I'm not even sure if my parents were. Um I think one. Anyway, uh I'm I'm as I said, I might be totally wrong, but it seems to me that initially when we decided to have somebody set on the soil and water committee was I we were establishing it was just one person. I might be wrong. So, I'm just bringing that up. >> I think I think we actually did it once it was the last board and was one actually went into tuition and it was I'm pretty sure it was too. >> So, >> I
021like that. Go ahead. Yes, sir. >> Well, I I I I still kind of like the idea. So, what I'd like to make is a motion to amend this policy and rec and for us to recommend it uh to the entire uh board um with the stipulation that we will be checking with the folks on the so on water conservation in the meantime >> with the with the change that you made with additionally one board member. >> Right. >> Okay. I'll second that. Any further discussion? >> That's fine. >> Hearing none. All in favor of passing amended policy 2330 onto the board uh with the word uh the last sentence saying additionally uh one board member will serve on the the soil and water conservation committee. Please signify by saying I >> I all oppose
022like sign that passes 30. Okay. We will move on to 2310 which is public participation at board meetings. This was also brought back from the um board as a whole to us to further discuss. Um I did ask Mr. Blanchard to look at what the fourth circuit had done in in this area. So Mr. Blanchard, >> the Len County case that we talked about, we're talking about the public participation. Part of the problem we're having here is that the fourth circuit allows us a lot greater leeway than apparently now the state wouldn't appear because there was a criminal case out just last month, state versus um that dealt with somebody coming to a board meeting with very crude banner they held up. Um, and the person appealed after being asked to leave first, the police
023arrested him for disrupting a public meeting, which is the statute actually we've got cited here. Um, the Court of Appeals published opinion held that no, it wasn't disrupting a public meeting, that his conviction couldn't be upheld because it was his first amendment right to do what he did. Now, and I just learned um today that the U AG's office had decided not to ask for Supreme Court review of that because group of municipal attorneys, myself included, had asked them to do that. >> We think it's an inaccurate statement of the law. But anyway, we're stuck with the North Carolina Court appears on this. Um I do think and there's some weird twist to it. for example, the guy with the banners in the back of the the room. Um I I think our content neutral
024restrictions that we have, you know, no banners, no placards, things like that, we can uphold those still because they are content neutral. They don't matter. You know, you're not focusing on people what they're saying. You're focusing on the the placard. These meetings are a limited public forum. I think everybody agrees on that. people, the commentators that we've had griping about our call to the audience things. Um I I think you uh as we have it right now, you can still stop people from shouting at board members and things like that because well that's content neutral. Mhm. >> Um but u I don't know that you um necessarily need to include all of the language in here and I'm not you know not sure that it really it really helps anything. Um you know it's obviously
025it's a accurate recitation of the statute but you know it's up to the board. I I don't see a whole lot of problem with their policy as written. Mhm. >> But, you know, I don't I don't have any real strong feelings about writing the additional stuff in either. It's, you know, it's the board's discretion. >> And I I just want to share that, you know, um is it section B um subsection C where it says no set uh warning requirement. I'll be honest and and I'm going to say this, I'm not going to use any particular officer's names, but when I took over originally as a board as the board chair, uh I was told by the person in charge that was here that, you know, there's, you know, they did not agree with what
026is written here. They said that there was three, you know, you had to give them three chances and then, you know, that they would, you know, remove somebody. Thank goodness I never had to have anybody removed. I don't know what I'll keep it that way hopefully. Um but you know um but there so I think that maybe it is important to have at least that section in simply because you know otherwise like I say and I guess and I don't know whether that person heard that from where you know their superior or whoever but that was you know one of the ranking officers at that time that said you know that that we will not remove anybody unless you you know give them a warning give them a second warning and then third go around
027we'll go ahead and remove them if you know and that's that I guess is their prerogative, but really by state statute, they're not following state statute. So, but um >> M justice. >> Okay. And that's on law enforcement. >> Mhm. >> By us felling this out, which to me seems unnecessary also. It is the state. I mean, you want just put state statute. I script the whole thing. To me, that seems like that's on law enforcement. But that's their local practice because what they're trying to do in my opinion is trying to lower the temperature without making it escalate and still give them the opportunity to do it on their own. But that's on the local law enforcement. This is the law. We don't need to spell it out. It's already in state statutes. If
028if we put state statutes for everything we have to follow, this thing right here would be this thick. That's not even counting our whole policy book. Um, and it was brought up and and I didn't necessarily think about this until somebody else on the board brought it up. This could maybe it's would tend to intimidate people and make them feel less comfortable speaking because of all this legal ease. They might be afraid that maybe we are going after it, which we're not. I don't think most people feel that, but some people it might. I just, you know, if it's already the law and, you know, you could maybe just put the statute down, not spell it out. I don't even think that's necessary, but you can put the statute down. All this is it just
029seems like a lot of unnecessary verbiage. And so now that we have let's just say for example so now we have it here. Does that mean we've got a law enforcement person here that's saying well you got to give them a chance or you know warning warning. >> I'm saying but no according are you going to tell the law enforcement person no according to our policy this is what we're saying. >> What's going to happen then? >> I guess a little bit strange. There's going to have to be a little attitude here. I mean, you're working with with people that are professionals and do this all the time. They probably have that uh I belief because they work with the public and they find that that's a less in inflammatory way to calm people down.
030That's my opinion. But are you going to say that to them? This is no, you have to stop them now according to the statute in our policy. >> Right. Right. >> You know, that could get really strange. >> Mr. Perry, your thoughts? Yeah, my um part of the um the the uh problem that I saw in this additional language is that you know it was the independent action section. During a clear violation of the law, such as disorderly conduct or disruption of official meeting, a law enforcement officer may act on their own initiative to remove individuals, which seems to fly in the face of the I mean because it's not very specific. I mean, obviously, if they're somebody's ready to assault somebody, I mean, maybe they don't have to wait for a warning to be
031issued, but I mean, disruption of a meaning could be anything. The way it's spelled out now, that could be you shouted or you clapped too long after somebody had their speech. Um, which or you booed during somebody else's speech where whereas the chair might give them a warning, maybe the law enforcement says, "I'm not waiting for the warning and I'm just going to throw them out because they disrupted the meeting." So, I think we need to be very clear on what what is it that we expected. I mean, it's one thing to say we don't need a set of warnings. um legally required by law. But if we want to give I think our typical default position should be I mean unless it's completely a physical a physical thing. Um, if it's a speech thing,
032I mean, I think we should always give at least one. Let's give our because, you know, sometimes we talk about some highly highly contested issues in here on some on both sides of the aisle as we have seen in recent years. So, people get heated, but uh, you know, we do need to keep the peace, but I mean, I don't want I want our chair to your M Mr. will divorce good u be able to to make that decision whether it warrants a um a warning or not and uh and but in as far as two I think we need to be clear if I was going to add anything to this thing it was just that you know we can't be giving a warning or two warnings to some to one person because we
033like what they said but it may be a little disruptive or because there was viewpoint oh I don't agree with that guy's point or that guy was kind of a, you know, I hate that person, you know, and then only give them zero or one warnings, you know. So, I think we need to be very consistent on that. So, I personally I think this adds more um well, I understand what's what revolves around it. I want to see our our our meetings be orderly places. I think we probably need to think about this more. I I I want um I just think that this would add confusion rather than actually clarify anything. >> That's true. >> For what it's worth, one of the things about the statute, and it's a funny way that disrupting statutes
034written, it reads this way. A person who willfully interrupts, disturbs, or disrupts an official meeting, and who upon being directed to leave the meeting by the presiding officer, willfully refuses to leave the meeting is guilty. So the way the particular you know 318.17 reads the chair the presiding officer has to say hey you leave >> for that particular statute. Now that doesn't mean as Mr. period out that you know this language if there's a disorderly conduct people back there you know >> balling up their fists at each other obviously a police officer can do whatever but one of the other problems we run into is we don't have our own police force we we you know this the sheriff's department determines the sheriff determines what >> the enforcement policy is for those >> guys >>
035you go first You want to say something? I want to say that you >> I just I know who would have thought. Um I do want to think just like with our SRO and schools, our policies don't dictate the actions of law enforcement. >> Their independent action they don't our policy wouldn't indicate one way or another. They would they are going to act with independent action as they see fit. Mhm. >> So I mean for for this the the officers of law will follow the the the rules of the sheriff and their own policies, not necessarily ours. >> Mr. Justice, thanks. >> And that's I'm piggybacking off. They're the experts. >> Um I've been in here since 2019 and got some pretty heavy situations going on sometimes. Really bad. You've been here, too. Oh, yeah.
036Oh yeah. Uh and and what's really, you know, I've I've always respected how the how the sheriff's department's handled it. So they are the experts and um this might constrain them. They're not supposed to. As he said, you know, that that I would prefer to uh let their professional behavior stand alone and not us try to dictate what they do. And if this is where the public if the public can't understand it, that's what law enforcement is is to keep the order, then I don't know where they've been. You know, that's Yeah. So I I really don't see that this is helpful at all. Thank you. >> And I just have one further question about this this is more of a question. Maybe Dr. Burns or Mr. Blanch can answer this question. Is in their
037capacity um when they're here working for us. Are they on duty per se or are they are they are we we are or are they just working working for us like sometimes police officers who work at construction sites or whatever flag? What is the what is the legal situation here as far as are they like on duty here or are are we simply just hiring for a part-time job is what I'm getting. Whether we pay for them or not, they're on duty. If they're in with a uniform like that, when they're exercising state authority like that, they're on duty. The question is I don't know. Do we pay for them or they or >> they are considered officers of the law during that time as well? >> We pay for them though. >> Yes. Yeah.
038We contract them >> like SRO's and whether we pay for them or not, they're they're still subject to control by the police chief, sheriff's deputies, subject control by the sheriff. >> So, I would entertain a motion about policy this right here in front of me that uh 2310. >> Oh, justice. >> I I move that we leave it as it is and not modify it. Without the >> I'll second that motion without >> any further discussion on on that. >> I I'll second the motion. >> Okay. Yeah, I got your second. Thanks, sir. All right. Uh all in favor of going back to the to the base, I guess you'd say to the beginning to the uh non amended 2310, please signify saying I. >> I. I. >> All opposed? I'll say no. So that's
0392 to one and that uh will stay in policy then uh without any changes. All right, let's carry on with 2335 advanced delivery of meeting materials. This is a pretty straightforward one. Uh we had talked uh at the last meeting about changing that last paragraph. um you know trying to compromise a little bit and proposed agenda and supporting materials will be made uh available for public inspection and it was as promptly as uh as promptly as possible prior to the start of the meeting but you know the idea was to change it to the morning of the agenda meeting. Uh Dr. Barn could you speak to that? Is that going to be doable for you all? I spoke with our staff yesterday. I think the we're already putting it into assembly anyway. So that timeline
040doesn't change our work at all. I do think the public will have to know that sometimes during an agenda review, we do modify those documents >> or we do make changes to what's going to be in there. So it doesn't necessarily change our pattern of what we do already. However, there are times that we've had a thing we're like, "Oh, that's supposed to be 45 cents and not 60 or geez, I forgot to put in that one sentence or whatever." So, the people will have to know that the that the reason for the agenda review is to prepare for the meeting. >> Those are rough draft documents at that point. >> I will make one more. Um the board needs to recognize and understand that then they will get the same information at a similar
041time to the public and understand that that's [cough] going to be pursued on the board to then be aware and be knowledgeable prior to that agenda review because that means that information is going to be public at that point. >> And my question in this and I'll go to you right after that Mr. is should we not then say maybe in the morning of the agenda review as a draft document so that it's clearly said that this is draft and maybe we put draft all over it and draft here and draft you know that way they're [cough] I do I definitely hear what you're saying that I think we're going to have somebody come back and say oh no no you said that this was this is how it was going to be and you
042know because as you said several times they have to understand well I think it's better if we put in policy that that way there. They don't have, you know, you have to understand that it says in our policy we're going to release it earlier than we were before, but as a draft document. Is that possible to do? >> I think that's fine. Or we'll just say agenda review is a draft document by gate >> team. Did I say that fairly reasonably? Did I miss anything? >> Mr. P, >> my only question for you because I don't want you to h the staff to have additional work. you I know you so presumably the morning the day of or whatever of the agenda review would this be an additional step of work for you my question
043is would it be easier just for you anytime you update it for the board that you update it to the public so you don't have to go in there twice >> we would update it in assembly it's really not a question of when we upload it's a question of opening the assembly to be available for everyone so That's not really a difference for us. >> So, >> I mean, we have to prepare it for you guys as a board. I just want the board to be aware that the time of you guys being able to know something and have awareness of it and ask questions of it before the public begins to ask you guys questions about it will be a much smaller time frame. >> Yeah. I guess let me just be clear. So
044that sometimes they you might I'm guessing that that you might start uploading preliminary material into assembly about the maybe the what what what the agenda is, but you don't have all the documents yet. Okay. >> No, it's been long uploaded before you guys. We have a time frame ahead of the agenda review that we have to get everything in assembly for you guys to see it. It's really not a question of us preparing the document differently. It's about the access point being open earlier for everybody else. >> So I'm just wondering if instead of you know earlier that day of the agenda review whether so it's no no harder for you to do it then than it is to just let the public see it as as it grows or changes. >> I mean as
045long as the public understands that is a working document until the actual board meeting. I think for you guys as a board to understand that when you get a call from a community member asking questions about something that you haven't had the opportunity to read yet, I would ask you guys to read that and then respond rather than direct my staff to, you know, ask questions of them that are it's already in the document. Does that make sense? >> So, one final question, I guess, and then then I'm done with questions. Um, is as far as assembly is concerned, is there any way to I know we often check as as me as our meetings get closer, board members usually check a little bit more just to see if there are any updates. Um, is
046there any way that we as board members can can when when something is new to new new and simply that we can get notified via email or text or something not through a manual like an automatic because I don't want anybody else spending more time notifying. Is there any way to configure simply to to send us a notification? Hey, the the agenda the agenda for the meeting has been updated. I don't know if we know that off the top of our head. Don, do you have any idea? >> I don't know. >> I'll find out. We'll >> find out. Okay. Find out for you. So, uh I'm going to make a a motion that we pass this on as the full board, but we add the words uh what has already been added as >>
047draft document. >> As a d as a draft document. So, morning of the agenda meeting as a draft document. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. a little bit prepared. >> All right. Well, give her another minute and then All right. Uh, all in favor of passing this on as an amended document, please signify by saying I. >> I. All opposed. >> That passes two. >> I [laughter] You don't look much like this judge. >> That's mean to duty. >> All right, carrying on. We have a couple here. Um board member technology use. Uh Mr. Blanchard, you were going to look into this one a little bit for us. Can you share anything on this one? >> Yes. Um most of the information I've worked with the school government obviously that's the easiest best
048place to look. Um most of their information deals with content moderation and the idea of blocking people on Facebook and things like that. Um there was a actually the policy that as it's written right now mentions a Supreme Court case from last year the uh Freedom case the US Supreme Court dealt with Facebook blocking Lindy versus free and what came out of that the Supreme Court said two two conditions for a public forum. One, it the the in that case it was a face Facebook page from the city manager. They have to have actual authority to speak on behalf of the government. And two, they have to be purporting to exercise that. And I think we do a pretty good job and this policy as we have it makes it pretty clear that individual board
049members don't have that actual authority. um which is good for for you guys because that frees your hands to, you know, on your own social media accounts to delete comments, things like that if you want to. Um the the proposed change here that ju just to say that you should not utilize um school system or individual school names or logos on personal social media. Again, it's one of those things that if you want to do that as a board policy, a code of conduct, certainly nothing wrong with that. Um I I don't know that it's necessary. There are other interests that come into play. I mean, we all know not to to, you know, use um pictures of individual students or things like that. >> That's a a not a good idea, >> right? Um,
050but yeah, the the change if you like this, I mean, if the board there's a consensus of the board to adopt that, I certainly don't have any I can't think of any any downside to it. >> Okay. Any question? We're talking about uh Are you First of You okay? No, no, I just want to make sure you're okay. >> Yeah, I have I have >> Okay. >> Very good. Very good. We're on policy 2127 and we're just talking about the the little red section that talks about board members should not utilize school system or individual school names, logos or trademarks on personal social media. But I am correct that if there's a you know if we're at an event and Laney High School's behind us and we take there's a picture of taken of us
051that would that would be fine. >> That's not really >> part of that is your your your interpretation of your own rule. You're the ones who'd be policing it. There's no no other schoolboard police out there on that. But I mean it all of these things in its face issues about it come up when when one board member wants to to snipe at another, right? >> And and fortunately uh you've taken us out of that loop. But >> Mr. Okay. My only issue with this is the I I have no problem without the logos or the trademarks um you know that belongs to the school, but I mean I think school names I mean this individual school names. I mean, you could just mention, hey, I'm real proud of our the Ashley Eagles and and
052all the things done and it could be innocuous post, but you mentioned the name of the school. So, you know, is that illegal now? So, I would probably just ask to amend it to say to to cut out uh individual in mentioning the school district. I might say, "Hey, do I have my personal opinion about NHCS? Is that illegal?" I mean, so I mean, I don't have any problem with if we just limit to the logos and trademarks, but I don't know what you're mentioning the the name New Handover County Schools or the name of some, like you said, a picture of in front of a football stadium full of fans and somehow that being illegal, you know, it could be innocent enough. So, um, if we could just limit it to I'd like to
053make a maybe a motion just to limit it to logos and trademarks and >> justice. I'm concerned that different board members to use our students as a background is what our students >> you know you're going to see in school but they put kids in and you're trying to promote yourself. We shouldn't do that. This is my that's what you know it goes from both sides. Mhm. >> Okay. Well, so basically I see we have we have a motion from Mr. Perry to change the wording from board members should not well from what it is now to board members should not utilize school system or individual school logos or trademarks on personal social media. Um is there a second for that first off? We could use the name, but we can't use the >> logo.
054Clarifying question about >> this. A question for you, Mr. Blanchard. If my social media page says Chris Barnes for NHCS school board, is that a personal social media or is that connected to the school board >> and connected to schools? >> That's definitely a personal one. you know, definitely um >> when we think about Hatch Act is the federal >> so that deals mostly with employees, not so much you guys. >> Um but >> but correct me if I'm wrong, we do have policy that states that the board will follow all policies for employee behavior. >> One of the nice things is we have this paragraph A in here already that makes it clear that hey, you know, your your statements, views aren't endorsed by the board. only the board's thing is uh that but
055I mean tough policy questions you're asking each other about this there there are good reasons that part of the problem is you're going to have people who don't use common sense in situations like this going both ways >> um people who accuse others of wrongdoing when they shouldn't and people who are pushing the rules to suggest endorsement and I I don't know I mean that I think that's all our concern is the suggestion of endorsement Um, and I think that's what you're getting at that you don't want any any suggestion of endorsement by the the system for an individual candidate or board member. >> I don't know an easy way to say that though. This is simple but it sort of leaves. >> Okay. So we again we have a motion. Is there a second
056about board me? We've just taken the word names out and hearing none. We'll carry on with this as it is now. Board members should not utilize school system or individual school names, logos or trademarks on personal social media. Is there a motion to pass? Yeah. And again, I'm going to just remind everybody that even if we pass it on to the whole board, we could still defeat it up there. >> Okay. Modify away. >> Okay. The very trademarks on personal social media that could be construed as endorsement endorsement for >> okay >> did that cover that >> that's a good way to say >> can you read it out in its entirety >> read the whole thing in it entirety >> okay here we go you're fine >> board members do not utilize school system
057or individual school name, logo or trademark on personal social media. It's such a matter that could be construed as an endorsement of >> okay of their positions or whatever. >> At this time >> we have lots of position. >> Okay. Is there a second for that? >> I'll second that. >> Okay. All right. Uh any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor of passing get the top again 2127 onto the full board as amended. Please signify by saying I. >> I. All oppose like sign. Passes 30. Very good. >> Good work. All right. Carrying on. I think our last one. >> Wow. >> Retire. Then we can retire. >> I'm going to talk really slow. Yeah, retirement. Yeah, good point. I like that. I'm going to talk really slow cuz I have like two hours
058to talk here. But no, only kidding. >> Um, Dr. Barnes, would you like to fill us in on this one, please? >> Sure. >> So, basically, this is not something that happens very often with employees. However, the state put a law in several years ago that that basically has 2015 as a marker point. If you were employed prior to 2015 and put into the retirement system, your final employer is responsible for any time that you may spike over what your retirement would be. >> After 2015, it has to be baked into the person's contract for it to be anybody other than an employee. So basically what happens is as all of us we using a retired person as an example one of our older gentlemen >> tall taller gentlemen now [laughter] >> as he retires
059when he retires the state will assess his retirement cost and make sure he has put in enough into the system to merit that payout. If someone spikes suddenly in a job or spends a very small amount of time in a very highpaying job, they may not have put above as enough into their retirement to balance. So they inspect every employee as it comes through. And for those rare employees that spake that's that spike, sorry, it then looks to see whether or not when they were employed. The language that the NCSBA have didn't clearly state that about the time about the year and so we wanted to add that in. Please, ladies, why am I talking? Go. Okay. What did I ask? I don't even know why I'm talking. >> Um, so I think a couple
060of the recommendations that the the biggest point being that defining marker of January 1st, 2015. We want to make sure our employees understand that. So, um, we were, uh, Miss Sutton and I were talking earlier about maybe even refining the language of this policy recommendation a little bit more. Um and our recommendation, you want to go ahead and just jump in? Sure. >> Our recommendation just for you all to think about. Um in blue, it's where we see that um NCSBA made that recommendation, but I I think what the missing piece is that date. Um and that's what we expect could be confusing. So, we may want to consider removing that and only including the part that's in purple with a slight change made to the last sentence that we can read if you'd like.
061Um so further clarification would be um let's see as stated under GS1355A3 if the employee became a member of the teachers and state employees retirement system prior to January 1st 2015 the board will be responsible for restoring the employees retirement allowance to the pre-cap amount so that way we can be clear about what happens if you're an employee prior to 2015 and following 2015. >> And and am I I just want to make sure I'm clear that that basically that the employee somehow would have to pay for if if somebody spiked in 2019. Um not not that I did, but uh 2019 um that they would be have to somehow pay for their part of their own retirement at that point >> depending on when they became employed in the system. Oh, so not not
062when they retired, but it's when they got started. >> Oh, okay. >> Can I try to >> go ahead? Yes, ma'am. >> So, in layman's terms, is this what you're saying? Is that before 2015 uh and their employee rate spike at the higher before they retired suddenly before 2015, then the district has to pay for it. >> But after that, no. If you were employed prior to 2015 and of course you would retire sometime after that. If you spiked the employer would be responsible your final employer like Dr. for said following 2015 there wouldn't be any responsibility unless it was included in a contract >> when it went back. >> I want to be clear this is a >> sorry go >> ahead want to be clear this is a pretty rare event. We only
063have eight people that we did a run on who we currently have employed. We only have eight people who even reach the individual assessment space and probably only one or two of them who might be subject to a spike in. So it is very rare that it occurs, but we wanted to be able to make it clear so when we can actually send a letter to those eight employees to let them know exactly what their situation is individually. I'll make a motion that 7910 with the blue deleted and the purple inserted uh goes on to the full board. Second, we have a second >> second, but I have discussion >> question discussion sir. >> Yeah, I just want to be clear before we vote. Um, so cuz it's still since I don't know how the
064the retirement system works, I just wonder and also maybe uh the people listening in may not know exactly how it goes. So when they set a retirement rate, is it the retirement benefit? Um the is it based off their last salary and then then we're being told that we need to make up for that or is it based off some kind of average over the >> It's based on the it's based on it's a coefficient that's based on your four highest years of consecutive employment. >> So it doesn't have to be your last score just your highest score. >> So technically if somebody were to you know okay they filled in as a they um they came up for four years and you know worked in the central office and they made a bit more
065money but then you know I want to get back to teaching you then they make less money but if they work for those four then that would be the spike we're talking about and they would get a retirement based off that and if they were hired before 2015 we have to cover that but they're going to have to cover it themselves if if if they were hired after 2015 thank Yep. And you don't even they don't even bother unless your average final compensation is over a 100,000. So if a teacher if their compensation was 96, they just did miss anything, please. There you go. Okay. We have a motion, a second to pass um this policy 20 uh 7910 on the full board with the purple replacing the blue. Uh all in favor, please signify
066by saying I. >> I. All oppose. Passes 300. All right. Unless I've missed something, which I probably have. The next and last thing we have left to do is adjournment. Is there a motion? >> We have no NCSD. >> That's That's it. I don't think we have >> I didn't see anything. Nothing. That's it. >> That's it. Now, we could talk for a long time, but I know some people have to go. So, all right. We have uh I'll make a motion we adjourn. Is there a second? >> Second. Okay. [laughter] All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. All opposed. >> We are. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Happy New Year. Merry Christmas. Oh, that's correct.