NEW HANOVER COUNTY — After much anticipation and hand-wringing from the public, the New Hanover County Board of Education will only make slight changes to its public comment rules. The board will also take up the issue of a board member’s employee bonus committee at an upcoming meeting.
READ MORE: NHCS recap: Public comment rules, PowerSchool data breach, and cellphone committee
ALSO: Biological sex, sexual orientation debated among NHCS board members as they approve policy changes
Both decisions were made at the school board’s Friday work session . The session was intended for a discussion only and board member David Perry proposed the board discuss the merits of his proposal to have a committee decide on employee bonuses.
The board unanimously voted to add back five “alternate” slots the call to the audience. Currently, the board requires anyone who wishes to speak at its meetings to register online for one of the 20 slots available.
Now, there will be 25, with the additional five slots serving as fill-ins for any of the 20 speakers who do not show up. Alternates will need to register in-person on a sheet provided 30 minutes prior to the start of meetings.
“We continue to have slots where somebody signs up and then says, ‘I’m going to be there that day,” board member Pete Wildeboer said. “We had three or four last time that didn’t show up. So I would almost be at a point where, I’m not saying we have to do it all in-person, but why don’t we have maybe 50/50.”
The board used to require everyone to sign up in person before launching the school district’s online portal. It was switched a few years ago due the online lottery system seemingly being more fair, which board member Tim Merrick reminded his colleagues of at the work session.
“I know that a lot of us here, before we were board members, did show up to speak,” Merrick said. “Ask 12 people or 15 people to show up an hour early is asking a lot out of our public.”
Merrick also warned against continuing to put restrictions on the call to the audience, remembering a time when he thought there were 30 slots.
“I don’t think we want to, you know, keep our public from being able to speak with us,” Merrick said. “And so I would hate to cut it down or make it more restrictive than it already is.”
In recent months, board members have floated the idea of moving the hour-long call-to-audience segment to the end of the meeting (but before closed session). Right now, it occurs about an hour in, after awards,recognitions and leadership reports. The board ultimately decided against moving it to the end, despite a push from some board members.
“It could turn out more people,” board member Pat Bradford said. “It might not work, but I just would like to see it tried.”
Bradford pointed out her recommendation to keep each regular meeting to four hours has been successful and helps speakers predict when to show up for public comment. The board discussed how moving it would present a problem for those speaking on that evening’s agenda items and wanted to be heard before the decision; this concern swayed the board against a move.
The board also did not take a vote on grouping speakers of a particular group, essentially designating a spokesperson, with the hopes of limiting repetitiveness and opening up the call to audience to more ideas.
The board agreed the public comment is regularly filled with the same speakers; Perry suggested staff give preference to anybody that hasn’t spoken in the last couple of meetings, maybe placing them at the front. Superintendent Christopher Barnes commented this method would present some logistical challenges.
Barnes also pointed out the public comment period is not the only way to get in touch with board members or staff, noting emailing and phone calls are also available.
“We want to encourage as much feedback as possible, not only at 2 minutes at a certain time during the month,” Barnes said.
Employee bonus committee
As proposed by Perry last month, the employee performance bonus committee would devise a “comprehensive performance bonus plan that most (if not all) NHCS employees would be eligible to participate in.”
Per a memo on the committee, the plan would go beyond degrees, certifications, and years of experience for determining employee bonuses and be based on the following qualities as well:
- An emphasis on individual student growth
- The need for transparent communication and collaboration between NHCS employees at all levels
- Innovation
- A recognition that employees should be able to employ practices that enable them to do their best work, without being micromanaged from above
- An objective evaluation process that NHCS employees can be confident will not be subjective or show favoritism
Perry thought the committee would need at least a year of meetings to come up with this plan, which would be presented to the board for approval. After that, the committee could be charged with finding funds to support the bonuses; Perry stated they must be “substantial.”
Board member Josie Barnhart asked if Perry had discussed the funding component with county commissioners, though Perry claimed it would be better to have a firm plan in place before asking for money.
“I’ve talked to some of our commissioners … and in theory they like this idea, but they’re not going to commit to any funds based off a four-page proposal,” Perry said.
Merrick, who said the plan would at the very least be demonstrable of the board’s care for boosting employee pay, suggested getting businesses to sponsor the awards, if allowed by law; the attorneys greenlit it.
Still, Justice objected to the entire concept, arguing as she did the first time it was brought up that it wasn’t possible for the awarding of bonuses to be a fair process. She likened it to trying to pick one’s favorite child because all of the district’s educators excel at what they do.
“It might feel good to people that haven’t been embedded in the school on the level, day-in and day-out, but down on the ground, we collaborate … And to try to judge one person’s way of collaborating over another and the different kids that we get, and how you measure growth, the state can’t even do it,” Justice said.
Justice was referencing North Carolina Department of Instruction’s “report card” system of issuing grades to each public school based 80% on academic performance and 20% on growth. Critics of the system say it’s not an accurate capture of student success and NCDPI has its own committee considering additional metrics to round out the report card.
Perry argued fairness was exactly why the committee was needed, noting it wasn’t enough to reward teachers with, for example, the highest test scores because one teacher may have students with higher averages to begin with, thus the highest scores may not reflect growth and teaching skills. He added that the committee will provide teachers with the opportunity to provide their feedback as well.
Perry’s motion to add the committee formation proposal to the board’s next meeting — April 1 — passed 5-2, with Justice and Barnhart dissenting.
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.
