[ad_1]
NEW HANOVER COUNTY — At last night’s New Hanover County board of education meeting, ongoing issues, such as banning classroom displays, and the legal representation of the district came to a resolution.
ALSO: NHCS re-litigates what teachers can put on their walls, more amendments proposed
Board member Stephanie Kraybill expressed her “disbelief” in her colleagues for removing family photos and student artwork from an emergency policy put forth last month. It has brought forth ire from some board members and the community.
“This feels vindictive and somewhat personal,” Kraybill emailed Port City Daily Thursday. “Students take immense pride in the artwork they produce in class, oftentimes the best way for them to demonstrate mastery of a topic or concept or plea for help over a stressful situation they may be facing.”
The school board passed policies 3200 and 7300, which bans most displays in classrooms, allowing content only on the United States, North Carolina and New Hanover County flags, curriculum, school-related material and post-secondary information.
The board voted 4-1, with Kraybill dissenting. Board members Stephanie Walker and Hugh McManus were absent.
This means family photos, student artwork and materials from other nations — which the policy committee proposed adding in last month — are prohibited.
Board member Pat Bradford brought forward limitations on displays at the school board’s May 7 meeting, bypassing normal policy-making procedure; normally policy changes go through committee before coming to the board. Bradford claimed it was an emergency, citing the protest at UNC-Chapel Hill over the Israel-Hamas war.
The policy passed 4-3, but the board sent it back to the policy committee, which Bradford is a part of, for formal review on May 21. The committee suggested allowing more items to be displayed beyond what was originally outlined, to include family photos, student art and other nations’ flags.
However, Tuesday night Bradford elected to strike the additions, seconded by Melissa Mason. Port City Daily reached out to Bradford on why she changed her mind; she did not respond by press.
In the meeting Kraybill posed multiple questions about the parameters of the policy restrictions; 3200 discerns display materials that staff can use and 7300 details staff responsibilities. Kraybill wanted to know how the changes will affect instruction for teachers that use visual aids in lessons, but board chair Pete Wildeboer cut discussion due to time; this item was lumped in with multiple policies and allotted at the agenda review meeting 15 minutes to cover Tuesday night.
Kraybill said in the email to Port City Daily she was “disappointed and infuriated” by her clarifying questions going unanswered.
Port City Daily reached out to the school district on clarification in the policy, such as whether student art will be allowed to be hung in art class or if international language classes can have symbols representative of their respective countries.
The media outlet also queried if there are any further guidelines provided for staff and faculty or if it will be left up to principals’ discretion.
The district refused to answer questions on enforcement of the policy; instead Sal Cardella, spokesperson, stated: “We don’t comment on board business. We follow the policies as written.”
Board member Walker told PCD prior to the meeting that she was confused with the vagueness of the policy, and that the new bans may be in connection with upcoming events such as Pride month and Juneteenth. This comes as the district staff put up and quickly deleted a Pride month post on its socials Monday.
Others, including at least one school board candidate, also took issue with the undefined aspects of the policies and did not understand the classification of displays. Republican David Perry signed up to speak Tuesday.
“The policy revisions are vague and ambiguous and in my mind still leave open the possibility that you could censor the First Amendment rights of our students,” David Perry said. “I say, please, just bring it back to your policy committee and do it right.”
New legal counsel
The board also voted 3-2, Bradford and Mason dissenting, on the hire of new legal counsel. Crossley McIntosh Collier will become the board’s general counsel on July 1, after the contract of current counsel Vogel Law Firm expires.
The board assessed three applicants in the spring to represent the school board, though Vogel did not reapply. Last month, after much debate, the board voted to keep Vogel, whose contract ends June 30. The law firm has been criticized since its hiring last year for its ties to GOP leaders and perceived bias toward conservative board members.
After the board voted to hire the new firm on Tuesday, it discussed its current contract with Vogel. Bradford said the board voted to continue Vogel’s contract past June 30, though Kraybill denied this, saying they only voted to continue the contract until expiration.
At the May 7 meeting, Bradford did issue a motion to “continue with the current law firm,” though she didn’t specify an end date.
Still, on Tuesday Kraybill motioned to terminate Vogel’s contract on June 30.
“Mr. Chair, may I please?” Vogel chimed in at the meeting. “It was the will of the board at the last board meeting to continue with our law firm. That motion passed, and so it is the superintendent’s role and the chair’s role to effectuate the will of the board.”
He said he presented the district the contract for the chair to sign and is waiting.
“Thank you for your comments, Mr. Vogel, but you’re not a member of this board, so they don’t county as far as in voting capacity,” Kraybill said.
The motion to terminate the contract passed 3-2, Mason and Bradford dissenting.
Vogel has represented the district for the past year. Before Vogel, the district was represented by Tharrington Smith Law Firm, one of the three firms that applied this year, along with Poyner Spruill.
Some board members did not understand the decision to go with Crossley McIntosh & Collier.
“Last month when we had this discussion, it was vehemently opposed by individuals because it was stated that this particular law firm was unqualified. So I’m just wondering if there’s any further information that I didn’t get that changed the minds of individuals on the board?” Mason asked.
While it was initially understood that Crossley McIntosh Collier was the most expensive option for the county, the law firm amended its pricing to the following: $250 per hour for partners, $175 for associates and $125 for paralegals. All the rates are cheaper than the original proposal, to be more on par with Poyner Spruill and Tharrington Smith.
Crossley McIntosh & Collier has never represented a school district, yet all attorneys have had children enrolled in NHCS. Norwood Blanchard, the attorney that would be the main contact for NHCS, also initially suggested the county hire Crossley McIntosh & Collier for board meetings and public records requests, but to contract out other firms for specialized cases regarding the board.
The firm boasted that it was a local firm with kids in the New Hanover County school system. While this also means the firm does not charge travel fees, the firm also said it gives them an added stake in board business because it operates in the community.
The board also voted to let its contract with Poyner Spruill expire on June 30, but voted to extend its contract with Sink Law Firm until December. Both firms were hired in February to assist the district with special education cases.
Tips or comments? Contact info@portcitydaily.com
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
[ad_2]
Source link
