New Hanover County Board removes member from committees after alleged closed‑session leak

At a special meeting of the New Hanover County Board of Education, members voted to remove board member David Perry from committee assignments and other board privileges for four months after allegations that he disclosed confidential closed‑session information about a parent's discretionary assignment appeal.

The action followed hours of discussion about alleged breaches of Policy 2120 (Board Member Code of Ethics) and a lawyer‑read FERPA release. The motion to instruct the chair to remove Perry from committee duties passed 5‑2. A later motion to formally censure Perry failed 4‑3.

The meeting opened with attorneys saying the board had received a FERPA release from Vanessa Sutton and Chris Sutton. Board counsel Michael Krompke read the release aloud and told members the document allowed certain discussion about the Suttons’ lottery application and communications with New Hanover County Schools, but later clarified that the release did not authorize disclosure of how individual board members voted. Krompke said, "that release was very specific. I can't help you with that." (Attorney Michael Krompke)

Pat Bradford, a board member, outlined the board’s concerns and repeatedly tied the discussion to Policy 2120. Bradford described the alleged disclosure in June as occurring "literally minutes after the strong admonition not to share information in closed session" and said, "Mister Perry willfully chose to text the parent and leak what was confidential at the time." (Pat Bradford)

Perry acknowledged the meeting’s focus and said he regretted the disclosure. "I realize afterwards that what I did was wrong and that it stepped outside of the procedure that we have for this thing," he said, and added he refused to tell the parent the hearing outcome at a later point. Perry also told the board he followed attorneys' advice about what he could discuss after receiving a FERPA release, and he asserted he had since kept confidences in later contacts.

Several board members said the problem went beyond a single text message. Board member Judy Justice described repeated objections to Perry’s conduct and said the board had tried private corrective measures. "There is some behavior that if it continually repeats needs to be addressed," Justice said. (Judy Justice)

After debate, the board voted to instruct the chair to remove Perry from board privileges, including committee assignments, for four months. The recorded roll call on that motion shows: Yes — Pat Bradford, Judy Justice, Josie Barnhart, Pete Wildebore and (board member listed as) Mason; No — Dr. Tim Merrick and David Perry. The chair described postponing the discretionary hearing after learning the parent had received ex parte information and said the hearing would remain on hold until the situation was resolved and any conflicted member removed from the appeal panel.

Board members also proposed a range of less‑ and more‑formal responses during the meeting: an offered "contract" on board conduct that some members said could be explored in policy committee; a motion that would have broadened the agenda to discuss additional behavioral concerns (that proposal did not pass); and a later attempt to direct attorneys and the chair to draft a resolution of "strong disapproval," which received no second. A motion to formally censure Perry was moved and seconded later in the meeting but failed on a roll call (Yes — Pat Bradford, Dr. Tim Merrick, Judy Justice; No — Pete Wildebore, David Perry, Josie Barnhart, Mason).

Board members repeatedly emphasized the limits of their authority. Several speakers noted that FERPA governs the release of student records and that board policy requires confidentiality for matters discussed in closed session. As board counsel noted during the meeting, the FERPA release received by some board members allowed discussion about the Suttons’ application but did not grant a blanket right to disclose closed‑session deliberations or how board members voted.

The meeting ended after the votes. The chair and attorneys were asked to produce draft language for a resolution of strong disapproval and to consider next steps consistent with board policy and applicable law.

Ending: The board left the deferred student appeal on hold pending resolution of the confidentiality concerns and the board’s internal actions.