Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves $16,019 sole-source coding contract and up to $100,000 in nutrition staff bonuses; moves to closed session
Summary
During the Dec. 4 special-call meeting the Edgecomb County Board approved a $16,019 sole‑source TechSmart contract for coding professional development using PRC 65 grant funds and authorized child nutrition merit bonuses not to exceed $100,000; it then voted to enter closed session under cited statutory exceptions.
The Edgecomb County Board of Education took three formal actions during its Dec. 4 special call: it approved a $16,019 sole‑source contract for TechSmart coding professional development funded by the PRC‑65 coding and mobile grant; it approved child nutrition staff merit bonuses to be paid in December 2024 and June 2025 in an amount not to exceed $100,000; and it voted to enter closed session under North Carolina open‑meetings law to consult with counsel and discuss confidential student and personnel records.
Sole‑source contract: The board moved and seconded a motion to approve a sole‑source purchase of TechSmart services for the 2024–25 school year, using PRC‑65 coding and mobile grant funds in the amount of $16,019. The motion carried on a voice vote. The board packet identified the contract purpose as Python coding professional development for middle‑school staff.
Child nutrition bonuses: The board approved a motion to pay child nutrition staff merit bonuses in December 2024 and June 2025, with total payouts not to exceed $100,000. Administration said the funding for the bonuses will come from child‑nutrition funds (the child‑nutrition program operates as a budgeted enterprise within the district). The motion passed by voice vote.
Closed session: The board made a motion to move into closed session under the North Carolina Open Meetings Law (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143‑318.11(a)(3) and (a)(6)), citing attorney‑client privileged consultation, FERPA protections for student records, and confidentiality for personnel records. The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.
No public commenters had signed up for the meeting’s public‑comment period before the board moved on to other consent and agenda items. A final vote on architect selection was not taken at the special call; the board asked staff to place the selection on the regular Monday agenda so members could review follow‑up materials.
Next steps: Administrators were asked to provide documentation on prior flood‑mitigation and renovation work referenced during presentations; the board will reconvene the issue for a formal vote at the next regular meeting.
