NEW HANOVER COUNTY — One New Hanover County school board member is pushing for the district to offer staff a day off for advocacy efforts; it comes after the board declined to move a regular workday to accommodate hundreds of teachers’ leave of absence for the May 1 May Day rally in Raleigh.
Board member David Perry moved to designate a “legislative workday” in the 2026-2027 calendar at the board’s May 5 meeting.
READ MORE: ‘I’m dipping into savings’: Educators speak ahead of rally about low NC pay ranking
“I think we need to show our employees that we are on their side,” Perry said.
Several hundred New Hanover County teachers traveled to the capitol on May 1 to protest the state’s teacher pay in accordance with North Carolina Association of Educators’ Kids Over Corporations Rally. Last week, New Hanover County Schools told Port City Daily it received roughly 325 substitute requests for the Friday school day.
In April, the school board had the opportunity to move a previously scheduled teacher workday scheduled for May 4 to May 1 in anticipation of the high volume of teacher absences. New Hanover County Schools told Port City Daily two days before the rally it received roughly 325 substitute requests for May 1.
Superintendent Chris Barnes suggested swapping workdays to reduce the number of days without regular instruction.
The board ultimately voted against the teacher workday transfer 5-1, with Judy Justice dissenting (Tim Merrick was not in attendance). The board’s Republican majority indicated the calendar that’s been in place for more than a year should not be altered based on “political activism.” After initially saying he was torn, Perry, who switched his party back to Libertarian, joined his colleagues in rejecting the date change.
On Tuesday, Perry suggested the district could, in the future, bus staff to Raleigh to a rally and provide them a meal in “solidarity” with their advocacy efforts.
Perry’s goal was for Superintendent Barnes to figure out the details of the workday — whether it would function as a personal day, for which teachers receive a handful already, or if a specific date would be set.
However, Perry’s colleagues said they would prefer the legislative committee to handle the details.
“I think there’s a lot of value in this idea,” Chair Pete Wildeboer said. “I think there’s some really good ideas here, but as Mr. Perry has already said there’s a lot to be worked out.”
Vice Chair Melissa Mason listed cost as her chief concern. Both Justice and Barnhart worried the move would not be the best use of teacher time.
“A legislative work day is different than a rally and so I just would like to have a little bit of guidance from the board,” Barnhart said. “It could be potentially an opportunity to host a legislative breakfast where we bring our reps here and give staff the opportunity. So as long as there is an opportunity for discussion of what it looks like — because to ship people to rally to stand in front of a building, I don’t think it’s going to be very productive.”
The matter will move to the legislative committee, whose members include Barnhart, Perry and Wildeboer.
Public comment
Also on Tuesday night’s docket were changes to the board’s policy on public participation at board meetings.
The policy outlines guidelines for all speakers, including the request for all comments be directed to the board chair and not individual members.
The new policy language adds to the bullet point: “Comments must be limited to matters relevant to the work of the Board and may not include commercial advertisements or solicitations, or comments about issues, activities, or organizations that are unrelated to the Board’s functions. Concerns regarding personnel matters should first be directed through the grievance process and should not contain current employees’ names.”
Justice disfavored the addition because it was subjective, she said, and she didn’t see the need for the last sentence in a district with a history of silencing those speaking about sexual abuse in the district.
“It’s going to make more questions than it is solutions,” Justice said. “I’m not even sure why it’s there, because that’s just common sense that somebody could argue whether any topic could be relevant to a school district with as many kids and this much stuff going on.”
Board attorney Norwood Blanchard explained the policy language was based on UNC professor Frayda Bluestein’s argument it was permissible to limit the scope of comment topics.
“You don’t want everybody coming up here and saying that Duke basketball is much better than UNC, for example, not because you disagree or agree with it, but because it’s a waste of the board’s time,” Blanchard said.
Merrick questioned if the language would prevent people from praying over the board because it could be ruled irrelevant to the board’s work. Board member Pat Bradford said she didn’t think the board would raise an objection to someone praying.
“I think you’ve proved the point of what my colleague to the right has said, which is simply that anything can be interpreted any which way,” Merrick said.
Merrick motioned to change the language from “must” to “should,” implying the board would not be forced into stopping a speaker if they didn’t follow the rule.
The policy amendment then passed 5-2, with Justice and Perry dissenting.
[Ed. Note: A previous version of this article indicated board member David Perry voted for the public comment changes; he in fact voted against. Port City Daily regrets the error.]
At Port City Daily, we aim to keep locals informed on top-of-mind news facing the tri-county region. To support our work and help us reach more people in 2026, please, consider helping one of two ways: Subscribe here or make a one-time contribution here.
We appreciate your ongoing support.
