Policy committee removes chair gatekeeping language for board attorney access, votes to revise policy

The policy committee for New Hanover County Schools voted to remove a provision that had been written to require board members to get the chair’s approval before consulting the district’s legal counsel and instructed staff to return with revised language at the next policy meeting.

The change came after a lengthy discussion of policy 26-10 about when and how board members may contact the board attorney. Committee members said they wanted transparency about attorney contacts but also expressed concern about creating routine written records for everyday policy questions.

"The response on something like that would be a public record," said Mister Blanchard, the board attorney, explaining why he preferred not to reduce routine answers to formal written records. "I prefer not to put things in writing like that very often for that very reason that it becomes subject to a public records request." He added that some categories of legal inquiries (for example, litigation or personnel matters) are already exempt from public records disclosure.

Mister David Perry, a committee member, said board members should be able to consult counsel directly. "I just believe that this is, the board of attorneys work for all of us," Perry said, arguing against a gatekeeping role for the chair. Committee member Miss Judy Justice moved to delete the paragraph giving the chair a gatekeeping role; the motion passed on a 3-0 vote.

After that vote members agreed the policy still needed clearer mechanics about timelines and notification. The committee voted to keep policy 26-10 in committee and directed staff and counsel to draft revised language for the March meeting so the full board could consider a single, cleaned-up version later. The committee's direction included a practical interim step: the attorney agreed to send a brief email notification when a board member other than the chair calls with a question, so other members could request details if they wished.

Why it matters: The change alters how individual board members will access legal advice and tries to balance transparency with the attorney’s concern about creating frequent public-record documents. Committee members emphasized that attorney work is paid from district funds and encouraged informal management of overuse of counsel while preserving members’ access.

What’s next: Staff and counsel will draft revised language and return the policy to the committee in March for deliberation before presenting a single proposal to the full board.