001spin on it. >> Welcome to our uh October 14th, 2025 uh policy meeting. Uh Mr. Keski, would you please call the role? >> Present. here. Judy Justice. >> Okay. Again, thank you all for being here. We do have a light um agenda. That doesn't mean it's not important, but we do have we only have three uh things to talk about. So, we will do that. We'll do that after our invocation. So, we'll have an invocation. And I've asked Miss Mason. Mason, would you please lead the pledge? Thank you. Sovereign God, you are our Lord and the keeper of our universe. Your word reminds us we are your people and the sheep of your pastor. Today as the board begins their meeting for the betterment of our schools. We thank you for the for every teacher,
002faculty and staff member and particularly for our students. pray for your continued protection over every campus, all of our students. We pray specifically that you will grant the direction, wisdom, and clarity in their decision making so that whatever decisions they make will be for the improvement and betterment of our schools. We thank you for your guidance and belovedness. May we forever give your name praise. Amen. >> I pledge algiance 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. >> Alrighty, here we go. Okay. Uh, I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. >> And I will second that. Any discussion? None. Hearing none. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I
003I. >> All oppose. Carries to zero. Um, and just a reminder to everyone, uh, since we only have two board members here, a split if if we vote one and one, that would not, uh, carry the motion, you have to have a majority of 51%. So, uh, but I'm sure we'll be in in the court. Um, next, uh, approval of the minutes. I'll uh make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. >> Any discussion? None again. Okay. This is going to be a quick meeting. All right. All in favor of approving the the minutes as stated, please signify by saying I. >> I. That passes two. Uh we'll jump right into our policies. First policy ahead of us is or before us is 2230. Uh this was discussed on the October 7th, 2025 board
004meeting. We have October 7th, I guess. So last week >> it was and uh all suggested revisions were approved. So here we go. Board committees. Um I don't see a whole bunch of change here. I didn't see any anyway. Miss Mason, do you have anything you would like to add to this or? Um, I know that there was discussion uh last week with uh a concern that one of the board members that wasn't present had um in regards to the representation on the committees. >> Um, and it was suggested that some of the that verbiage be edited, added, something to that effect. Um and it for me having gone through this process of of assigning individuals to committees um my goal initially was to ensure that the committees that were larger mirrored the the composition
005of the board itself. Um, and if we were to make any changes, that would be my recommendation that we as as best as possible, the chair will mirror the makeup of the board within larger comm committees and I mean just spitballing as as a thought. I don't know what your thoughts are on that. Well, and and as you know, I was the chair before you and I also try to get uh folks, you know, from each party on there, but uh as I had mentioned, I think at the meeting last week that, you know, we have two um areas on either side of us on in Brunswick and Pender that, you know, have no one from uh both, you know, one party. So, it would be very difficult to do that. I think, you know,
006maybe just uh you know, in as we move forward, we can we can keep that in mind. I think if if we're you know uh honest that you and I in the last three years have tried to do that it doesn't always work out because you know if we only have one member or even two members it makes it a little bit more difficult to to to balance that. >> So I think my thought process in adding it would be to the best of their ability. So if it's not possible it's not that they're violating policy but it's in there as a stipulation for there to be fair representation. um if if we determine not to do that, that's also >> okay. >> I don't I don't I'm not married to it. But I I
007think um in listening to the concern from that board member, I I understand that perspective because there's a possibility that in in a year or so the makeup of the board is going to be entirely different. And so making sure that um all voices are are protected um is really I think what was what was the hope in in that. Yeah. >> So maybe if we were to do something like that, maybe in the first section, section A, um maybe even in that first paragraph saying something along um members of each pol uh of each party will be you know >> I would even hesitate to say that to be quite honest I would say that the and and I don't know if the attorneys can the attorney can you know help out but I
008would say that the makeup of committees will to the best of our abilities I can't remember the exact words I just said earlier but to the best of our abilities will mirror the makeup of the board. So if it is a complete one party >> then they're going to make up that one party. If it is a makeup like we have currently then it will mirror that where there's a majority of the one party but also a representative of that. I don't want to necessarily go and say each party will have I want to I would say it should mirror the makeup of the board >> so >> as best as possible. >> Would you like to join in? >> I agree with Miss Mason. not in favor of hemming in in any way the
009the board chair. I think it should be up to the board chair to decide. That's my personal belief and I don't think I don't think putting any type of restrictions on that choice is advisable because they will always be open to discussion. Um I think the committee members serve at the board chair's pleasure and I think it should read that way. I understand you want to try to make it fair. I'd like to think the board chair is a fair person by definition. So I'm not sure I I I I want to put in any restriction or requirement for the board chair. >> And I hope that can con conveys easily it it committee members serve at the board chair's pleasure would be my preference. Well, and you think about I I think about the
010fact that, you know, as we elect a board chair and vice chair that they are, you know, they we have the ability to say if that person is not fair, why would we elect, you know, right? They they won the job because they're fair, >> right? >> Well, Mason, if you like to make a motion or do you want to leave it as as is? >> I mean, I can make a motion. I just don't remember the verbage that I had. Um I should have written it down. Maybe just saying what you said before without so without getting into any anything, you know, that the board chair will do their best to be fair to all members of the board um in selection of board committees. And that's that that kind of says it without
011saying. >> Miss Brenson's back there. >> Princon library within it. It tells as far as the members like the finance committee, it says at a minimum of two board members, but then the legislative committee says three board members, preferably at least one for each party. Your policy committee says three board members, but doesn't say about the parties. Your student scholarship says all board members. So, you kind of would have to make the statement after each single committee, I would imagine, since it's so different. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, I'm going to make a motion that we leave policy 2230 as as it stands. >> Okay. I will second it. >> Okay. All right. Any further discussion? If not, we will leave 2230 as it stands. >> We don't have to bring that back. >>
012We don't have to bring it back. No, I don't think so. >> Okay, we'll move on to our next >> We did. So, you second it. All in favor of leaving policy 2230 as written. Please signify by saying I. >> I. All oppose. That carries to zero. We will carry on. Public participation at board meetings. Uh this one we have the uh policy that has been approved uh 20 2310. What I say? Yeah, I said 22 uh as approved uh on the left. And I do want to thank board member Bradford for uh speaking with the sheriff and um giving us some some food for thought uh in a second writing of policy 2310 which is on the right. Um I think that that you know looking at Mr. Bradford and I have talked about
013some things. I think that there's I've also heard from Miss Justice and uh Mr. Perry on their thoughts on some of these things. Um, I do think that there's some ver there's some value to a lot of things that she has here. Some things I think that like um for instance uh Miss Bradford and I talked about the fact that we typically put the general statutes on the at the end of a document, not throughout the document. Um, also section G, I had mentioned um that that that is true. And again, um, and I I'll take the the blame for that. Um, I did talk to one of our uh lead lead folks who were here during my chair time and they they actually did tell me that there were uh they would not remove
014someone unless there were two or three warnings given. Um, so that's a little bit different. I did talk to the sheriff directly and he said no, there is nothing in the statute or anything that he's directed his folks to do uh that say that. Um, then going on to section seven and I'm going to go look over Mr. Krokkey on this one. Uh if it says if the board does not hold a regular meeting during the month, the board will not provide a time for public comment at any other meeting held during the the month unless the majority of the board votes to allow public comment at the meeting or unless the purpose of the meeting is a public hearing. I do want to remind everybody that may be watching that we we did add
015um early in my tenure a uh a minimum of three town hall meetings for the simple for the only purpose of of hearing from the public. So that is something that is is has been added uh above and beyond regular meetings. But there's been some discussion on what exactly is like for instance uh Mr. Perry shared with me that he he feels that the agenda review would uh be a regularly called meeting. So that if for some reason we heaven forbid we had a hurricane or uh weather event where we would have to cancel our regular meeting that um you know we would have the agenda reviewed that we would have to have a public hearing or a public uh call audience time. Uh Mr. Crumpy, do you want to give us your thoughts on
016that? M >> Mr. Wor, we looked up the applicable statute. It's section 115 C-51. And our interpretation of that is is that if there is not a regular meeting, the normal call to audience occurs. We're not mandated to have one. Now, if you want to have one by vote of the board, that's fine. Mhm. >> I'm not sure the agenda I I don't I don't recall ever anyone ever attending an call to audience or or or rather we don't have a big we don't have a lot of visitors or spectators at the agenda. I'm not sure. >> My take that is that the law is written so that if hey there's an emergency weather related cancellation you don't have to plug in a call to audience in some other meeting. I'm inclined to follow that
017statute and uh and unless the board is really itching to have that call to audience and they vote for it, I like seven as it's written. >> And I mean, I remember um in the past couple years that we've served that there has been at least one incident where there was a state of emergency and we had to have um one of our regular meetings via Zoom or whatever platform we used. Um, and I do recall that uh individuals that had wanted to speak for call to audience were notified and asked to record their message and that was played during that meeting. So there was still even if the meeting was cancelled, there was still opportunity for the public to be able to speak. Um I I don't know if or when this has happened.
018At least in our in our time on the board, I don't believe that this has ever happened where if we don't have a meeting, we don't have call to audience. If we've had to have an online meeting, we've still had call to audience and we've still provided that opportunity for for people to be able to participate. So I don't I don't see I I don't see this as having occurred in the time that we've served. Um, but I do I do appreciate that there's the majority of the board that votes to allow the public comment. And I know that there are there are other board members that that plenty of us absolutely want to hear from the public and would if if absolutely we had no other options would absolutely vote to ensure that the
019public was heard. So, I think that having that stipulation in there is also um really helpful in maintaining that the community's voice is still heard. So, >> okay. >> But if I could speak to >> please Yeah. >> all of the rest. >> Speak speak >> speak. Um I love the the idea of this. My um and and I've spoken with a couple other board members as well. Uh my only um I guess suggestion is that there is some repetition and redundant feels like redundancy in some of the letters. And so my thought process because there was that repetition in D, F and G was to somehow combine those in a more cohesive and concise way. Um, like I said, I love the idea and the concept and I want to maintain the tone of
020this. Um, but I want to make sure it's as clear and concise as possible. Um, and so I don't I don't exactly know how we would want to maneuver that, but I wanted to kind of present that before making any assumptions. >> You said DFNG. >> DFNG because um, and I'll just read them. Uh, general statute 143-318.17 makes clear that the presiding officer of the meeting may direct any law enforcement officer to remove that person. And then F, in all other circumstances, law enforcement officer will act under the direction of the presiding officer of the meeting. That means the chairman or other authorized board official must identify the specific individual and issue a directive for removal. For example, officer, please remove the individual in the description in the description who has refused to comply with
021the chair's instruction. And then G, there is no state statutory requirement for a set number of warnings such as two or three. Therefore, a set number of warnings will not be set out. When the presiding officer provides a clear instruction, the individual refus refuses to comply and the board chair then directs law enforcement to remove that person. Law enforcement officer will enforce that order promptly and professionally. It it feels like there's overlap in those and I don't know if you agree. Um, so that was kind of my thought. Yeah, like I say, I don't think that we need to go through the work. You at least I don't think we need to like G. I think we could just eliminate G because I don't think we need to necessarily that's between the chair and law
022enforcement. I I don't know that we need to to put that in in writing that, you know, that because it could be that, you know, I think it's it's not a bad normal procedure for, you know, there to be a warning, you know, so it's not a just, okay, I'm throwing you out. I'm throwing you, you know, because then it becomes just a a circus where we're just, you know, I don't like what you said, so I'm throwing you out. You you you stepped out of line, so you you're getting thrown out. You know, thank goodness we're we've gotten away from that. We, you know, early in my time on the board, there was a lot of folks that were thrown out. We haven't knocked on wood thrown out anybody uh in recent years, which
023is a good thing. Um, you know, so I I don't know that that's even though there is no set standard uh two or three warnings. uh giving two giving a warning or or maybe even two warnings is not a bad idea instead of just you shoot you know kind of throwing folks out because you know at the end of the day I don't think anybody wants to throw anybody out. It's not like we you know get that some kind of strength or power from that. I think we do want to hear from folks. We want to hear from them. Sometimes we hear things we don't like to hear but it is what it is. Um SC >> I think entire six can be boiled down. There is some redundancy extra verbage. Um I would propose
024you allow us to work on it for a month and I'll come back and be a lot more concise. >> Okay, why don't we do that? >> You can recite that law. >> Okay. >> Clear and concise. >> And if we could also possibly take, you know, like all the general statutes that are up here. I I just don't think that for this policy we have to have them all up in in this everywhere else they're at the bottom. I think maybe putting them down there. And I do think as we just talked about with the prior policy, you know, we have um you know, one of our board members missing this month. Um and it might be good to hear from from her also. So, uh I'll make a motion that we take policy
025um number so I say it right. 2310 uh allow our attorneys to work on it for the month and uh return it to policy uh in our November meeting. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion? Nope. Okay. All in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. All opposed. >> Passes to zero. >> Are you trying to gabble? You keep >> Yeah. I I want to. >> All right. Excuse me. Can you >> I'm sorry. Am I allowed to have fun? Did I have fun here? >> No. There's no fun here. >> There's no fun here. >> No fun here. All right. Well, we have one final policy unless we have something else we want to discuss. Uh and that is board attorney 2610. Um and the the the highlighted part
026of this one is every board member must be informed of the question response within 24 hours or prior to any board or committee meeting whichever comes first. Um I think we need to um clarify because it's still in the gray area. is that that I think the idea of the board members doing that versus um asking our attorneys to do that for several reasons makes sense to me. >> I have a suggestion >> and Miss Mason has a suggestion though, so we're going to go over to her. >> This one I did this one I did write down. Um after hearing the concerns that people had, I um I'm going to move that we add that we insert the following verbiage. Um, and I'll tell you what it is. Every board member must be informed
027of the question and response by the requesting board member within 24 hours or prior to any board or committee meeting, whichever comes first. >> I'll second that. It's very well said. >> Did you get that, Mr. >> I and I can share it with you. >> Okay. Good, good, good. I think that's perfect because then it does take uh it it gives us that that responsibility which is what needs to happen. Mhm. >> You are you coughing because you're coughing or is you don't like that idea? >> I'm coming over coming off of sickness. >> Okay. Okay. >> Recovery. >> All right. U do you have any thoughts on that? >> Mr. Glad you wanted me to remind you guys of what we dislike as the board of attorneys is being asked to investigate >>
028the actions of other board members where someone comes to me and says, "Brian, would you look into whether what so and so is doing is permissible or legal." And that puts us in a conflict um a clear conflict. We we represent the entire board. Now, that's not to say when we see things that are someone's doing something wrong or may I use the word, no, I won't use that word, someone doing something that's blatantly wrong. Okay, I try to tell that board per board member, whoever what they're doing might be invol, we're going to we're going to do that. That's our job. But I don't want to be used as a tool of enforcement. >> I don't want to be the guy. I don't want to be the referee to tell what tell the board
029members what they can and can't. Dude, this keeps coming up in social media instances and that's a little frustrating for us. I'm not Norwood and I are not here to police what people are saying to other people online. I I get it. I see that it's very clear. It probably shouldn't be said in the manner that it's being said, but I don't want it to be my job to go and have to flame somebody for what they're doing. And and I'd like with humbly request the board consider that >> that we are not being used as a tool for enforcement of anything amongst our own board members. >> Well, I think that this actually what Miss Nation suggested would put the the onus on the individual board members. So I came to you and said,
030"Hey, I don't like what Miss Mason's doing. Can you, you know, look into it?" Well, according to this policy now, if we accept the policy was written, then I'm supposed to tell the whole board that, you know, that I've asked you to, you know, do whatever, you know, checking Miss Mason's ideas >> and I mean, if I can >> please >> kind of jump in. >> Um, I think I understand what Mr. Crumpy is saying is that they don't their responsibility the attorney's responsibility is to give us legal advice on policies on on policies and on how things are going and they're our legal expertise. What they are not our our um police officers, our moms or dads. They're not that's not their role. That's the role of the chair and the board. the board
031is responsible for policing itself. Um, and while I understand wanting to know the legality of things, I think putting them in the middle, we are we are all they contract with us. Um, and it puts them in a very difficult position and almost a conflict of interest. So, I understand what you're saying. I do also remember that Mr. Blanchard had put forward some verbiage um at the meeting at last agenda review. Do we still have that? Because he had asked that um I can't remember the exact wording because he he said it that the board will not um basically what Mr. prompkey is saying is not utilize the attorneys as a go-between or as a tool for consequences. Um, and I I feel like there was some verbiage that he had that he had written
032down um that that really kind of summarized that to to support that we aren't like I said the the board is accountable to itself. the chair and and the other board members are responsible for um maintaining and and observing and and watching each other. That doesn't mean we tattle. That doesn't mean we police. That doesn't mean we but it means that we hold each other accountable um in a respectful and fair manner. And it's not right for us to reach in to our superintendent. It's not right to reach to our attorneys um to to do that for us. it is our responsibility as board members to hold one another accountable. So, um if you can get that if if Mr. Blanchard can send that verbiage, um I think that would be important to have in
033there as well simply so that any any future boards don't fall into the same pattern of utilizing the attorneys as a weapon. You're not a weapon. You're a support. you're a tool that we can utilize to ensure that we're running the district in a legal and appropriate manner. So, >> and we wait. If he takes long enough, you're not going to beat my record. >> I know exactly what I was thinking. >> I mean, that's great. Why don't we take a five minute uh recess and we will be back at um >> 33. >> 133. >> Math is hard. We are back. Um I did find um and I think I can read it. Uh says the um regular board chair or or regular board chair or chair of a committee uh member shall not
034ask board attorney about the actions of another board member. >> Okay. Absent. Absent. Absent. Regular board chair. Re absent. What is regular? >> Maybe aside. >> Aside, man. Maybe. >> No, it says absent. I'm pretty sure. >> I think that >> I read a lot of messy writing. So, >> I think that's saying that the regular that the board chair can can >> Oh, absent approval of the board chair or >> approval. Yeah. Oh, absent approval of it's either man >> he should have been >> we need Mr. Blanchard to practice his penmanship. >> Yeah, >> absent the approval of the board chair or I'm going to say chair of committees, >> board members shall not ask board attorneys about the actions of other board members. Okay. So, you'd like to make a motion to
035put that in. Is that correct? At the end of that paragraph, >> I move that we add um insert. Uh absence of the approval of the board chair or committee chair, board members shall not ask board attorneys about the actions of other board members. >> I'll second that. If I may, I can plug in legal advice about the actions of other board members. >> Okay. >> Just to make it more refined. >> You're killing me, Mr. >> Sorry about that. >> All right, let me read that. >> Okay. Okay. So, legal. Okay. The legality of actions. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, let me rephrase. I move that we insert absent approval of the board chair or committee chair, board members shall not ask board attorneys about the legality of actions of other board members. >>
036And I would almost the only thing I would change in that is I don't I think we're opening ourselves up to a plethora of use that word plethora of concerns because we have a lot of board of committee chairs. I think it should just be the board chair. >> I'm fine with that. >> Yeah. I just want you to do it again. >> He sent it to me. I can read it. >> Okay. Why don't you go ahead and do that? >> Unless requested by the chair or directed by a vote of the board. >> Okay. >> The board attorney shall not provide legal advice or opinions regarding the actions or conduct of board members. Can I borrow that? Make a motion. >> Okay. >> Last time. This is the last time I'm doing it.
037Yep. Not doing it again. >> All right. So, I move that we insert >> at the end of that paragraph >> at the end of the paragraph unless requested by the chair or directed by a vote of the board. The board attorney will not provide legal advice or legal opinions regarding the actions or conduct of board members. >> I'll second that. Okay. Any discussion? >> Better late than never. >> Well, we got it alone. >> Okay. Sure. Sure. We might get it back. >> All right. Uh, so we have a addition to policy 2610. Any further discussion, Miss Mason? >> Okay. Uh, all in favor of sending it on to the full board for further discussion and vote, please signify by saying I. >> I. All oppose. Like sign. >> All right. F pass is
03820. Uh, at this point I will end unless we have something else. Miss By, I know you have a good time. >> I mean, I could delay you so you don't eat my time, but I don't have anything else. >> All right. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I suppose I move that we adjourn. >> I will second that. All in favor, please signify by saying I. I. All opposed. What would you do if I had said no? We would still be