The Durham Public Schools Board of Education on Thursday approved changes to policy 7215, the district's meet‑and‑confer rule, adopting an 11% representation threshold for employee representative organizations and language allowing certification through the district or a mutually agreed third party. The motion to adopt the modified policy passed 4–3 after lengthy public and board discussion.

Supporters of the modified policy said the changes were intended to repair a breakdown in trust between the district and employee organizations and to provide a clear process for participation. "An ERO may choose to be certified by the HR department of the district or through a third‑party certification process," Board member Jolena Chavez said while presenting the edits, noting that an ERO choosing a third party would be responsible for any associated cost.

Board members and the district attorney flagged legal and practical questions during the debate. Board counsel Malone cautioned that lower thresholds are easier to defend and said, "We feel really comfortable at 6%; as you go up from that, it gets a little grayer. 11 does not significantly concern us, but I can't tell you that 11 is absolutely defensible." Malone also said she had concerns about wording in the appendix that promises confidentiality for lists provided to a third party and recommended further legal review of that confidentiality claim.

Discussion focused on three specific changes that proponents said would restore collaborative bargaining: (1) raising the threshold for recognized organizations to 11% of non‑administrative active employees, (2) adding a brief definition of an employee representative organization (ERO) as an employee‑only organization open to employees and independent of the district, and (3) specifying a certification process that allowed either district verification or third‑party certification agreed by the superintendent and the ERO. The final motion removed a detailed certification appendix from the policy text and directed administration and counsel to continue work on procedural language.

Board member Kelly Carter Otten moved a friendly amendment to require the ERO and the superintendent to agree upon a third‑party certification process; that amendment was accepted and incorporated into the policy. Several board members said they supported meet‑and‑confer in principle but were uncomfortable with the 11% threshold; Board member Michael Tabb explicitly said he would not support the policy at 11% and noted legal counsel’s preference for a lower percentage.

The board attorney confirmed there is no controlling case law setting the precise threshold and said the district would vigorously defend whatever number the board adopted, but that lower numbers create a clearer defense. She also said the legal team would continue to review confidentiality language and related appendix material with the superintendent and that the board could expect follow‑up legal memos. "That part made me a little uncomfortable," Malone said of the confidentiality language, "because I'm not sure that information provided by NCAE or DAE to this third‑party consultant would in fact be maintained confidentially."

The motion to adopt the modified policy, presented as the "May 22, 2025" version with the additional edits, passed by voice vote, 4 in favor and 3 opposed. The board made clear the policy will be implemented with procedural details to be finalized by administration and counsel and that the certification appendix would be resolved collaboratively.

Going forward, administration said human resources will be responsible for producing the baseline employee census used to calculate membership thresholds and that the superintendent and EROs should work to finalize a mutually agreeable certification procedure. The board also indicated willingness to revisit the threshold and appendix language if legal review or subsequent events warrant further edits.

The board’s action formalizes a meet‑and‑confer pathway for employee organizations, but leaves procedural details and confidentiality clarifications to legal counsel and administration. Board members and the attorney said they expect continued conversations over the coming weeks to finalize the certification steps before the policy is implemented.

Ending note: The board directed staff and counsel to return with any clarifying procedural language and legal analysis; the policy as approved provides the framework and authorizes final procedural work by the superintendent and the Board's attorney.