The New Hanover County Board of Education on a 5-2 roll-call vote adopted a resolution expressing formal disapproval of board member Dr. Tim Merrick and suspending him from committee assignments for approximately two months.

The vote followed more than two hours of procedural debate, legal clarification and member statements on whether a censure-style resolution can be adopted without full formal disciplinary proceedings. Melissa Mason, the board chair, presented the resolution and moved to adopt it; the motion passed 5-2.

The resolution, as read into the record by staff, described allegations that Merrick had “intervened in an employment matter” and that those actions “directly undermined his ability to impartially and fairly carry out certain of his judicial functions” under various board policies. It alleged Merrick disclosed details about a personnel matter and concluded that corrective action—suspension from committee participation for roughly two months and an expression of strong disapproval—was warranted.

Dr. Tim Merrick, the board member singled out by the resolution, disputed both the procedural fairness and the substance of the charges. “I did not get to process Robert's rules of order suggests, 30 days is recommended, not the 4 days that I was given,” Merrick said, adding that he had not had counsel in advance and that he had attempted to follow board policy while advocating for a staff member. He also said the staff member involved had asked the board not to censure him and that the staff member’s contact with him was voluntary.

Board members debated the reach and purpose of a censure motion under Robert's Rules of Order and state open‑meetings requirements. Board legal counsel cited prevailing parliamentary commentary that a motion of censure—framed as an expression of disapproval and not a punitive measure beyond reputational sanction—can be adopted without the formal disciplinary procedures that a trial or suspension would require, so long as the adoption occurs in public session. Other board members argued censure is a penalty and therefore requires the formal procedures described in board policy and Robert’s Rules when the underlying conduct occurred outside a meeting.

Several board members urged the board to protect staff confidentiality while also enforcing policy. Josie Barnhart moved and the board voted to read a single redacted passage from an email the board had reviewed in closed session; Barnhart read the passage aloud: “please don't share my recommendations with the board. You could use the same reasoning along with your own very compelling reasons of why it's harmful policy with no upside,” and closed with “Be polite, but let them know how you've been affected.” Board counsel advised that a redacted version of the email could be released and that he saw no legal reason to withhold it from a public‑records request.

During the public deliberation portion that preceded the vote, Chair Melissa Mason set ground rules for the discussion and said she would give each board member two opportunities to speak. “I am giving each board member 2 opportunities to speak. The topic of discussion will be focused solely on the resolution presented,” Mason said.

Across the dais, members expressed differing views about board authority, the chain of command, and how to balance employee advocacy with the board’s duty to stay out of day‑to‑day personnel management. Pat Bradford and others argued the chair has discretion to impose corrective measures when a board member has violated policy or defied direction. David Perry and other members said they were sympathetic to Merrick’s intent to support staff but worried about impartiality in future grievance hearings if a board member had been substantively involved in personnel matters.

The formal votes recorded in the meeting transcript were: approval of the meeting agenda (roll-call vote recorded earlier in the session); a 5-2 vote to move into closed session for posted reasons; a subsequent vote to release a redacted email passage; and finally the 5-2 vote to adopt the censure resolution. The meeting concluded shortly after the board adopted the resolution and then adjourned.

Board policy numbers and statutes cited in argument were recorded by multiple speakers and by counsel during deliberations. The board and counsel also referenced Robert's Rules of Order and its official commentary when discussing whether a censure motion may be adopted without full disciplinary procedures.

The resolution and the votes will be reflected in the board minutes. The transcript records the board’s action and the positions stated on the record; the resolution itself—its exact final text and the effective dates of the committee suspension—will be published in the official minutes and attachments distributed by the board office.