NEW HANOVER COUNTY — The simmering outrage and frequent outbursts from the crowd at Friday’s New Hanover County school board meeting was not enough to dissuade the board from voting to censure Tim Merrick.
READ MORE: School board member weighs legal action over unexplained censure vote
The board voted 5-2, Judy Justice and Merrick dissenting. The move was brought forward by Chair Melissa Mason who said Merrick violated several policies in his actions relating to a teacher’s concern about the district’s display policy and not following the chair’s directions.
At the top of the meeting, Merrick motioned to adjourn, calling the chair out of order, but it was voted down.
“I remain neutral on the question of guilt,” he said later.
Though censures are only formal reprimands and come without consequences, Merrick spent the two-hour meeting defending his actions in front of a 160-person crowd, many of whom showed out to advocate against the censure. Mason started the meeting asking for the crowd to be respectful.
Holding signs with statements like “Where is Josie’s censure?” and “Good trouble — thank you, Tim,” Merrick supporters chanted “shame on you” at the board several times and called Mason a “bully” and “mean girl.” Mason, typically soft-spoken and restrained, was in fiery spirits, using her gavel often to threaten removal of audience members out of order.
One of the sheriff’s deputies charged with keeping order told the chair she would need to point out specific people to remove from the meeting, upon her asking to clear the room at one point. The deputy reminded the crowd they had a right to be there due to free speech, but urged them to be respectful.
By the end of the meeting, two audience members were escorted out of the building.
What led up to the censure?
Merrick was censured due to a string of events that started with a conversation he had with an upset teacher who was contemplating quitting over the district’s display policy. The teacher displayed a small Pride flag on a classroom bookshelf and was told to take it down because it violates policies 3200 and 7300, which limit displays to government, NHCS content and post-grad opportunities, student art and family photos.
Merrick said the educator reached out to him and shared emails back and forth, the teacher advocating for the policy to be changed. When Mason found out, she reprimanded Merrick for not directing the teacher to use proper channels to voice a complaint — to the principal and then the superintendent — and for getting involved in employee matters that should be handled by the correct administrative staff.
As punishment, Mason suspended Merrick from serving on committees for two months; however, Merrick showed up to these meetings as a “private citizen.” Yet, while attending, others questioned why he was not part of the committee and Merrick spoke of the situation that had him removed.
Merrick maintained he never revealed identifiable information about the educator or a personnel file. Though he pointed out during the censure vote that the employee technically gave up personnel protections by reaching out to Merrick first.
“Anyone who thinks I had access to or shared information from a personnel file is grossly mistaken,” he said.
According to Mason, the instance still led to Merrick violating multiple policies:
- 2010: Overstepping boundary in superintendent and board relations
- 2122: Overstepping role of board members in complaints
- 1010: Overstepping board authority and duties
- 2500: Hearings before the board
- 2342: A board member must vote on all matters
- 2125/7315 and state law: Confidential information
Merrick said he wanted to protect the person’s identity because of the district’s reputation of retribution when employees speak out. The teacher sent an anonymous letter to the board backing up this assertion, arguing censuring Merrick for standing up for staff was the opposite of what the board says it stands for.
“That staff member wrote anonymously to the board,” he said. “And what does that tell you? We have a lot of work to do to regain the trust of our teachers, our students and our parents.”
A round of applause followed his assertion.
After hearing a resolution with all the policy violations, the board went into closed session as audience members continued to cheer and interrupt the meeting. Mason already called out numerous disruptions, including during the Pledge of Allegiance when some voices from the gallery were unified and amplified during the final line “and justice for all,” followed by clapping.
“That’s a warning!” Mason said, pounding the gavel among numerous boos. “We can clear this room; it is a privilege for you to be here.”
Board members respond to the censure
When the board returned from closed session, the chair gave each member two opportunities to speak on the censure. Most agreed the censure was not about the initial conversation that Merrick had with the educator but everything that occurred after.
“I have made some mistakes with policies,” David Perry said.
Perry was voted on the board last fall, in addition to Merrick and returning board member Justice.
“I’m on a learning curve too,” he added. “We try to rectify, apologize and move on … but it’s very important that we stay outside of personnel matters.”
Perry added that were the employee to be formally disciplined and wanted to appeal the decision before the board in a grievance hearing, Merrick would have to recuse himself from the vote. Merrick acknowledged this in his comments, saying he would have stepped back if it came to that.
Perry also said Merrick could have appealed his committee assignment loss to the whole board instead of discussing it with non-board members. Mason described this choice as Merrick’s attempt to “evade and frustrate” her disciplinary efforts.
Merrick maintained he had a right to attend the committee meeting as a constituent and that board tradition, not policy, allows for the revocation of committee assignments. But Merrick took responsibility for aggravating the situation.
“Even though it’s not improper, I get that it felt like a stab — or as she said, it felt like I was giving her the middle finger,” Merrick said of Mason. “And maybe I kind of was, not consciously — but I was upset because I felt I was trying to help a teacher … I want to apologize to the Madam Chair that I sat in that meeting.”
Mason said she and the board attorney, Norwood Blanchard, met with Merrick on March 4 to discuss policy violations in line with her goal to address problems individually. She accused Merrick of continuing to violate policy despite this, and it was because of this perceived insubordination board members Barnhart and Pat Bradford supported the censure.
“When there is a violation of the code of ethics or even the law, or when a board member goes outside of their lane without consequence — when we disregard those things or usurp the authority of the superintendent or our board chairman, things start to unravel rapidly,” Bradford said. “The authority to correct our actions rests solely with the chair.”
Bradford believed the board needed to uphold and respect policies, process and chain of command.
“Now, let me give you a little analogy in case you’re having a hard time wrapping your mind around this. The hospital…” Bradford began to speak to the audience.
Merrick interrupted amid strong reactions: “Point of order.”
Mason pounded the gavel.
“When we’re talking about respecting policies, we need to respect our audience, and that was a clear violation. There is no place for that kind of talk,” Merrick said, to applause and a standing ovation.
Mason threatened to remove anyone who was standing, before agreeing with Merrick it was not well-received. She allowed Bradford to continue but asked her to move past the analogy.
In the end, Bradford’s point was that Merrick overstepped boundaries and acted defiantly against the board chair’s wishes, something Pete Wildeboer agreed with. Wildeboer indicated the censure was necessary because of such but didn’t have faith it would accomplish much. He also took the opportunity to deny accusations that the board’s Republican majority were using the censure as a political move.
“It is very evident that the chairwoman has tried to work through the situation with our fellow board member, but he has not complied with her directors, so that’s what I’ve heard,” Wildeboer explained of his vote.
Justice — who was censured on the board in 2022 — was Merrick’s only defender. Though she didn’t deny he violated policy, she did think her colleague made a “rookie mistake.”
“It was done in the best of intentions and it was protecting someone in his mind,” she said. “The level of this reaction is out of bounds as far as helping our kids and our staff.”
Justice also pushed for all members to be treated equally, noting she had brought forth a censure against another board member that fizzled yet her concerns remained unaddressed. Justice told Port City Daily earlier in the week it was against Barnhart, in response to a parent email criticizing the board’s actions on the sex education curriculum. Justice was also critical of Barnhart’s statements after the board voted down an AI security pilot last month, in which Barnhart took to Facebook with comments after the meeting that Justice thought called Mason a liar.
“We need to be doing better,” Justice said Friday. “If we’re going to go forward, we need to handle all of these problems.”
Barnhart asked to read a part of an email between Merrick and the educator, promising to withhold defining information.
Justice asked for the attorney’s input before moving forward, with the audience agreeing from the gallery: “Yes.”
With a huff, Mason asked the attorney to speak to her request.
“I couldn’t find a reason to withhold it,” Blanchard said. “Somebody [can make] a public records request for it, which I’m certain will happen as soon as we leave here.”
The board unanimously voted in support of Barnhart reading the email written from Merrick:
“Please don’t share my recommendations with the board. You could use the same reasoning, along with your own very compelling reasons of why it’s a harmful policy with no upside. Be polite, but let them know how you’ve been affected. A colleague is having trouble with Outlook, it may not be receiving your email. If she doesn’t respond, take care and thank you for caring about our schools.”
She also noted other excerpts and defended Mason for bringing forward the censure, saying the board has attempted to be more unified and transparent in recent months. Barnhart added every board member should hold the other to the same expectations.
“The attempts to work with this colleague has not been effective,” she added.
Mason repeated she attempted to course-correct on issues she had with Merrick privately. Mainly, she explained she opted not to call him out in a public forum before, having learned from being a mom and teacher it could have caused more of a negative reaction.
“My goal for this board is, if there is an issue, I will address each individual and not bring it to an entire audience of people. And I’ve done that. I’ve done that with other board members and other board members have received consequences,” she said.
Mason also worried of putting the educator’s identity in peril, saying it wouldn’t have been hard for coworkers, teachers, parents and students to figure out the person’s identity even with the smallest amount of information revealed.
“And that was bad enough for me. We are trying to protect our teachers. We are trying to make sure…” Mason began before she stopped due to laughter from the audience. “If you do respect free speech, you will let me say my peace. This is an indicator you do not.”
More disruptions ensued and Mason had someone escorted out of the meeting, as another yelled from the audience, to applause: “You’re a public servant.”
While Merrick said he was accepting of however the board voted, he worried about the aftereffects of the whole event on teachers, calling it “chilling” if they walked away thinking they couldn’t come to the board with concerns. Merrick also stood firm he did not interfere with the superintendent’s duties and followed another policy championing support for staff.
“I decried an unfair and hateful policy that was impacting a staff member,” Merrick said. “I believe, and the staff member’s email supports, that my conversation felt supportive and they were grateful for it. And in fact, policy 1010 states the board considers some of its most significant duties to being an advocate for our employees. Our staff members need advocates, especially in the face of dismissive and damaging policies.”
Ultimately, Merrick agreed he could be more “careful” in the future to gain back trust of the board.
“There is a difference between being an advocate and an activist and a diplomat,” he said. “I fear I have supported many of the people in the public through my activism, but I also have to measure that and be diplomatic as well. So, for that, I apologize.”
Reach journalist Brenna Flanagan at brenna@localdailymedia.com.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
