NEW HANOVER COUNTY — The erosion of civility was among topics broached by school board members this week. Some also took the opportunity to decry recent political events fueling hatred.
READ MORE: New Hanover County school board overrules committee decision, bans ‘Stamped’ from curriculum
The discussion at Tuesday’s agenda review for the New Hanover County Board of Education was not followed by a vote; Chair Melissa Mason said several members expressed concerns about the board’s heated interactions since December. Board member Pat Bradford in particular asked for Tuesday’s discussion, the chair indicated.
“We got to the edge of chaos just six weeks ago, and I don’t want to ever go back there again; it was traumatizing for some of the people in the audience,” Bradford said.
It appears Bradford is referring to the protest and subsequent board meeting on May 6, where the board voted on whether it would take up the book “Stamped.” The meeting became testy and included several audience outbursts deriding the board during the “Stamped” consideration.
The board temporarily banned the book from curriculum in September 2023. Despite the push at May’s meeting from board members Judy Justice and Tim Merrick, the majority chose to defer the discussion to the curriculum committee, which recommended reinstating the book. However, the school board went against committee advice on Tuesday and voted to pass a permanent ban.
Bradford added during the agenda review meeting she disapproved of social media posts that “drum up” opposition to the board’s actions and personal attacks made by the public. She described the current climate as “destroying our school district.”
Port City Daily asked Bradford on Wednesday if she could specify instances she was referring to, but Bradfor said she would most likely not be able to respond until tomorrow because the board is conducting student appeal hearings today.
Board member Josie Barnhart did respond to Port City Daily’s request for the board member to expand on her comments made Tuesday.
“I was going to contribute nothing to this conversation, being very honest and the unfortunate reality we are in a growing state of violence in our society, specifically towards elected officials,” Barnhart said at the meeting.
Specific examples she mentioned included the political assassination of two Minnesota lawmakers, the “Democrats who crossed party lines and agreed with Republicans then were shot dead,” Barnhart said to PCD on Wednesday.
The motive of the shooter, Vance Boelter, has not been definitively determined, yet authorities found his “hit list” of 45 lawmakers, all of them Democrats. Barnhart also pointed to the recent bomb threat that cleared out the New Hanover County Courthouse, though no political motive has been attributed to the man charged with making the false report.
Republican Sen. Bill Rabon also faced threats allegedly from Anthony Street, Brunswick County Soil and Water Conservation District board member, who was arrested on June 20, for Rabon’s sponsorship of a bill limiting shrimp trawling.
“Threats of violence towards any elected official regardless of what political affiliation is unacceptable,” Barnhart wrote in an email. “When colleagues call out political affiliation ONLY when they disagree with a decision, it is encouraging political hatred.”
At Tuesday’s meeting, Barnhart suggested one board member was inciting violence based on comments made at a rally.
“I was at a rally where one board member said, ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore. You should show up and share out,’” Barnhart said.
It was Merrick who made these comments at the No Kings rally earlier this month. When Merrick tried to respond to Barnhart’s reference Tuesday, Mason said no and apologized for not having enough time to continue the discussion.
Before Barnhart’s comment, Merrick did speak on decorum in general, noting he agreed with his colleagues on the importance of it, yet cautioned against labeling public expression as an act of aggression.
“Let’s talk about banning the book; when we do that, we essentially blame a huge number of people in the community, and for us to expect they’re not going to make their thoughts known, that’s short-sighted,” Merrick said. “And if we’re going to work with the public, we have to invite them in, not shut them down.”
In his thoughts on decorum, Pete Wildeboer said the board has made strides in connecting with the community, pointing to its town halls for both the public and staff. He also disparaged using social media as a tool.
“In my time on the board, I was definitely the minority and so frustrated, but I didn’t go on social media and attack people or attack a county commissioner,” Wildeboer said. “I said what I said, but I didn’t put it out there.”
Both Wildeboer and board member David Perry claimed public input sometimes goes too far. Perry added he was for free speech and protesters exercising their rights.
“What they do out in the street and they do their protesting is their business,” he said. “What happened at our last meeting with one of our speakers personally came out and pretty much attacked Ms. Barnhart was out of line, and there was nothing substantive about what that speaker was saying.”
At the June meeting, local activist Sandy Eyles addressed Barnhart’s challenge of the book “Blended,” which Barnhart made in her parental capacity. The book follows a mixed-race 11-year-old, navigating her parents’ divorce and incidents of racism in school, all culminating in a traffic stop where Isabella is mistakenly shot by an officer. Barnhart claims the book is too mature for an elementary audience, and when the book was deemed acceptable by the Wrightsboro Elementary book review committee, Barnhart challenged it at the district level.
When it was again deemed appropriate by the district-level committee, Barnhart had the opportunity to appeal to the school board, though Superintendent Chris Barnes stepped in, ruling the book could remain in middle and high schools but be restricted by parent permission only for fourth and fifth graders.
The district refused to reveal the parent filer’s name, however, WHQR reported at the time that sources said it was Barnhart.
As a result, Barnhart took to social media to claim those sources violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which prevents the disclosure of identifying student information by educational institutions.
Barnhart demanded accountability for the “leak” of her identifying information, claiming it was done to “create media buzz and sow division in our community” and showed a “clear attempt to manipulate, sway, and intimidate decision makers under the false claims of ‘book banning.’”
Ultimately, Chair Mason urged board members to think and act as a board, even when their individual opinion doesn’t match the majority. She also urged members to consider several actions before speaking from the dais, on social media or to news reporters.
“I say to myself: ‘Will sharing my opinion serve or harm the students, staff and families of this district?’” Mason said. “Because, board members, our goal is to strengthen the schools, not to weaken them — does what I am about to say do that? Does that strengthen or does it risk undermining it?”
Both Mason and Bradford also urged the board to follow its policies, including its code of ethics and board norms. Bradford claims the board violates the former every week.
“Why do we have policy if we’re not going to uphold it?” she asked.
This is a common refrain of Merrick, who has pointed out many times over the last few meetings when the board is differing from policy. The most high-profile example is the “Stamped” incident, when Chair Mason broke board policy 2230 by not bringing it up as an agenda item within two meetings of Merrick and Justice’s request for it to be added. Merrick has also criticized the board’s Republican majority on multiple occasions for not following proper procedures — such as changing the agenda without proper notice — and without a vote to suspend the rules.
Moving forward, Bradford said she would make a point of order — essentially a call for the board chair to get the discussion back on track — every time a personal attack was made, which could potentially result in some people being asked to stop speaking. PCD asked Bradford how she would distinguish between valid criticism of a board member and a personal attack, though no answer was received by press.
Reach journalist Brenna Flanagan at brenna@localdailymedia.com.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
