Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Superintendent Residency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent group urges board to investigate whether superintendent meets NC residency rule
Summary
At a July 13 Cabarrus County Schools meeting, a parent-advocacy group requested the board investigate whether Superintendent John Kopicki complies with a North Carolina statute requiring superintendents to reside in the county they serve, citing public records and a pending FOIA request.
Alexis Hughes, speaking for the group You've Heard Her, asked the Cabarrus County Schools board on July 13 to investigate whether Superintendent John Kopicki lives in the county the district serves and therefore meets a state residency requirement for superintendents.
"If the law, facts, statistics, and court precedent are only applied when they produce the outcome we want, then they don't matter at all," Hughes told the board. She said public records show Kopicki remains registered to vote in Pennsylvania, owns a home and vehicles there, and that she will submit a formal letter and supporting records asking the board to review whether he complies with the applicable North Carolina statute.
Hughes said she has provided the board and state officials with a public-records request for Kopicki's employment contract and any amendments; she told trustees she has not yet received the requested documents and urged the board to be transparent. "This board has both legal and moral obligation to act," she said.
The allegation centers on a residency statute Hughes cited during public comment. She said she shared her evidence with the State Board of Education and legislative oversight offices.
The board did not take immediate action on the request during the meeting and no district official offered a substantive response on the record at that time. Superintendent Kopicki provided lengthy remarks earlier in the meeting about district activities and recognition of staff and students but did not address the residency claim during the public-comment period.
The board's next public meeting is scheduled in August; the subject would be eligible for a future agenda item or closed-session review if the board determines the matter requires further investigation.
Ending: The board adjourned to closed session after approving a package of budget and contract items; the transcript shows the residency allegation was raised publicly but not resolved at the July meeting.
