Public commenters criticize county handling of school consulting contract and call for transparency

Several members of the public used the Sept. 2 public comment period to press Rockingham County commissioners on transparency and a consulting contract the speakers associated with former superintendent Rodney Shotwell.

Doug Eisley, who identified himself as a county resident, said the county had "refused to even place this issue on the agenda" in earlier years and accused commissioners of political timing now that construction is under discussion. Eisley criticized what he called duplicate studies, saying the school board paid Cropper GIS $57,500 in 2024 for an enrollment and facilities study and that the county packet included a separate $10,000 contract for work by Shotwell. "That's $67,500 taxpayer money for duplicate studies," he said.

Eisley also alleged conflicts of interest, including a claim that Commissioner Hall owns Cirrus Construction and could profit from projects the commissioner might vote to fund. "That appears to be textbook conflict of interest," he said. The county attorney and commissioners spoke during Eisley's remarks to dispute some of his statements.

Jim Fink and Lynn Knight, other commenters, echoed calls for transparency and questioned the timing and process of the contract. Fink said the contract had been in the packet and was later pulled: "There's a deal on the table. The next minute, nobody knows where it went," he said. Knight noted prior studies, including an NC State study and the $57,500 Cropper report, and said repeating work or commissioning new reports may indicate distrust of previous results.

At the start of the meeting the chair said item 5b had been removed from the consent agenda after discussions with staff. The removal and commenters' objections were framed as concerns over whether the county followed qualifications-based procurement (the Brooks Act was cited by a speaker) and whether the contract's scope aligned with Department of Public Instruction grant requirements; a commenter noted the Shotwell scope was dated July 22 while DPI guidance cited in the packet was dated Aug. 18 and asked how the earlier scope could meet later guidance.

Why it matters: Speakers portrayed the contract and its placement in the consent agenda as an example of insufficient transparency and urged commissioners to openly debate consultant contracts and procurement before the public. No formal board action on the contract occurred during the meeting; the consent agenda was approved after item 5b was removed.

Attribution: Allegations of conflicts and duplication were raised by public commenters and are reported here as their statements. The board did not adopt or confirm the factual claims during the meeting record.

Next steps: With item 5b removed from the consent agenda and public commenters requesting more information, the issue could return to a future agenda for formal discussion; the meeting record does not show a scheduled follow-up date.