New Hanover County Schools board keeps committee policy, sends public-comment rewrite to attorneys and limits attorney role on member conduct

The New Hanover County Schools Board of Education held a policy meeting Oct. 14 and voted on three policy items: it left Policy 2230 on board committees unchanged, sent Policy 2310 on public participation back to staff and attorneys for redrafting and return in November, and approved language for Policy 2610 limiting when the board attorney will provide legal opinions about the actions or conduct of board members.

Board members said the short agenda contained several policy items they considered important to clarify. The board approved each motion by recorded voice vote of 2-0, a tally the presiding officer noted reflected that only two board members were present for the meeting.

Board committees (Policy 2230) Matters: board members discussed proposed verbiage to encourage committee composition that, “to the best of our ability,” would mirror the makeup of the full board. One board member said the intent was to protect minority voices if membership changes in future elections; another said the chair should retain discretion to appoint committee members. After discussion, a motion to leave Policy 2230 as written passed 2-0.

Public participation (Policy 2310) Matters: board members reviewed a rewritten draft of the district’s public-participation policy. Discussion focused on three points: where statutory citations should appear in the document, whether language about removal of disruptive attendees duplicates other sections, and how the policy should treat public-comment opportunities if a regularly scheduled meeting is canceled. Board counsel reported the board’s interpretation of the applicable law (referred to in the meeting as section 115C‑51) and noted that General Statute 143‑318.17 authorizes the presiding officer to direct law enforcement to remove someone at the chair’s instruction. Several members suggested combining repetitive subsections and moving general statutory citations to the end of the policy.

After that discussion, a motion passed 2-0 to have attorneys revise Policy 2310 and return the draft at the board’s November meeting.

Board attorney role (Policy 2610) Matters: members debated language that would require the board attorney to notify all board members of a legal question and the attorney’s response within 24 hours or before any board or committee meeting, whichever comes first. Board attorneys urged caution about being used to investigate or “police” other board members, saying they represent the whole board and trying to adjudicate disputes among members could create conflicts. The board approved inserting the following procedural condition to the policy and to forward the change to the full board for action: unless requested by the board chair or directed by a vote of the board, the board attorney will not provide legal advice or legal opinions regarding the actions or conduct of board members. That motion passed 2-0.

What the votes mean next: the board left Policy 2230 in place immediately; Policy 2310 will be rewritten by attorneys and returned for consideration in November; and the Policy 2610 language approved at the meeting will be forwarded to the full board for further discussion and a formal vote.

The meeting closed after the board approved an adjournment motion by voice vote.

Sources: the board’s Oct. 14, 2025 policy meeting transcript. The meeting included multiple references to General Statute 143-318.17 and to section 115C‑51 of the state statutes as relevant authorities for public participation and officer direction of law enforcement.