Here's what's behind the proposed censure of a New Hanover County school board member

Editor's note: This is a developing story and will be updated if new information becomes available.

According to interviews and documents reviewed by WHQR, an employee contacted Merrick with concerns about the district’s new restriction on flags—namely the Pride flag—in schools. The teacher didn’t want to remove their flag and didn’t know what to do. After Merrick responded, board chair Melissa Mason disciplined him and removed him from his committees for two months.

Merrick showed up at a meeting for one of these committees as a “constituent,” and when he did, people asked him why he lost his assignments. Merrick said he had been helping a teacher. Mason appears to be arguing that was a breach of confidentiality of the educator’s personnel file — which suggests there may be a document reprimanding the teacher for their actions.

Mason is planning to hold a meeting to censure Merrick either Thursday or Friday; it’s not yet clear if she will attempt to hold parts of the meeting in closed sessions. Merrick told WHQR he needs more time to prepare a defense than just showing up this week for this censure, which will likely pass along partisan lines; he has also suggested that Mason may have violated policy or the law in the way she crafted the proposed resolution to censure him.

One of the catalysts behind Merrick’s potential censure was a presentation by the district’s Student Voice group on Tuesday, February 4. This group is a team of high school students who work to give the board their perspectives on policy.

The students produced a report that gathered feedback from 108 teachers and high-school and middle-school students. A survey showed that 79% of respondents wanted to see the flag policy amended to allow more options in classrooms. As of now, teachers can only display “materials that represent the United States, the State of North Carolina, New Hanover County, the school name and mascot, post-secondary institutions, school-sponsored events, sponsorships, military flags, family photos, student art and/or the approved curriculum.”

The controversial classroom policy was first passed in May 2024 and amended the next month, which included the banning of student art—another update in July reversed course and allowed that artwork.

The Student Voice group said the respondents saw this policy as restricting First Amendment rights and limiting the ability to express diversity and individuality. However, the students did recommend that the flags displayed should not endorse hate, offensive speech, or exclusion. They suggested a possible form to report a flag that someone felt demonstrated one of these things.

About 54% of teachers who took the Student Voice survey reported that the updated flag policy negatively impacted their ability to teach and express themselves.

After the students' report, board member David Perry thanked them and asked for a copy of their findings. WHQR asked for this report and has yet to receive it.

Merrick thanked them for being good citizens and for taking an interest in how board policies affect students. Board member Judy Justice told the students they should attend the upcoming policy committee meeting, where the board could debate the students’ suggested changes.

Member Josie Barnhart did not address the Student Voice group on February 4, but wrote in an email the following day to her board colleagues, superintendent Dr. Christopher Barnes, and the faculty advisor for Student Voice.

Barnhart noted that, in the survey, “72.6% reported some of the flags on display were outside the approved list,” and asked, “As a board member, I am under the impression our staff is to follow policy. Hearing that static [sic] I am asking, am I mistaken? Dr. Barnes could you please advise what your expectation is in regards to following policy?”

Sometime after this email, Barnes addressed district principals at a regularly scheduled meeting and said they needed to follow the classroom display policy.

NHCS staff said that Barnes then sent out a Google form attesting to their school’s compliance with policies 7300 (staff responsibilities, which includes classroom displays/flags) and 3200 (selection of classroom materials).

During this process, a teacher told Merrick that they were willing to be disciplined for having at least one small pride flag sticking out of a coffee mug on their shelf, or even quit over the issue. The teacher has asked not to be named out of concern for retaliation and their safety.

Merrick told WHQR that he commiserated with this teacher, saying that the policy was unjust, but encouraging the educator to stay in the profession.

Eventually, Mason caught wind of this and emailed Merrick on March 12, copying both board attorneys, Norwood Blanchard and Brian Kromke. She informed Merrick that he had been removed from his committee assignments for two months for his interactions with this unnamed educator. Notably, Mason received harsh pushback earlier this year from fellow Republicans and the New Hanover County GOP for appointing Merrick, a Democrat, to the committees in the first place. During the county GOP convention, there was an unsuccessful measure to officially condemn her actions; Mason remained defiant that she’d done nothing wrong.

Mason wrote to Merrick that some board members had “concern[s] regarding communication with community members. It was noted that there was disparagement of staff and questioning of their motives as well…”

She said his actions violated Policy 2120, which outlines ethics for board members. Mason wrote, “The board chair recommends that if a teacher or staff member comes with a concern to any board member, it is strongly recommended that this concern is shared with the Chair or the Superintendent.”

Merrick acknowledged attending an NHCS Turnaround Task Force meeting during his two-month suspension, but he said he went as a private citizen and not a board member.

On Saturday, April 5, Mason wrote to Merrick and the board that a special meeting would be held either Thursday or Friday to censure Merrick due to his violation of Policy 2125/7315 (confidential information) and potentially Article 21A of Chapter 115C of NC General Statutes, which concerns personnel files and confidentiality.

She wrote, “ I apologize for the timing, as I wanted to gather all of the relevant information. I am finalizing the resolution with the attorneys and will be sending in the next couple of days.”

On Monday, the educator at the heart of the censure proposal wrote to the board anonymously. They noted that some months ago, they reached out to Merrick in “frustration and fear.” They said they shared their story with Merrick as a constituent so that he could advocate for an end to the classroom display policies, which Barnes was asking principals to enforce.

The educator wrote that they couldn’t go to Barnes at the time because he was the interim superintendent and said they thought the other board members would not help them.

They wrote that Policy 2122 (role of board members in handling complaints) states that those who are “elected to serve the public” are “always available to receive input” but acknowledged that the policy also states that complaints and inquiries are “best handled and resolved as close to their origin as possible,” but added that those closest to the “orgin” were not helping, referencing the administrators who have to execute the board’s policies.

They added further that they feared losing their job by going to the administration about their concerns, and thus decided to reach out to Merrick.

They closed in writing, “It is absurd you should see someone reaching out their hand to pull up their fellow and slap it in hopes he [Merrick] would never reach out again. How dare you.”

Mason sent a resolution to Merrick on Monday regarding his upcoming censure. In the email, she asked the board to “please not release this to any media, including social media, at this time until there is opportunity to deliberate and discuss among the board members.”

In the resolution, Mason accused Merrick of potentially violating Policies 2010 (board and superintendent relations) and 2122 by intervening in an employment matter involving an employee disciplinary action and that he could no longer be impartial if the action ever came to the board for a hearing (Policies 1010, 2500, 2322). Merrick has told WHQR that he would recuse himself if it came to that. She also cites that Merrick violated the terms or conditions of employment or employment status of a school employee.

This could mean this employee had an official reprimand letter placed in their personnel file.

Mason confirmed to WHQR that there is no policy prohibiting staff from contacting a board member, although she wrote, referencing 2122, the board “believes that complaints and inquiries are best handled and resolved as close to their origin as possible and that school system employees should be given every opportunity to handle issues quickly and efficiently.”

She added that “board members must remain neutral during a pending dispute.” This suggests that the employee did nothing wrong by reaching out to Merrick, but that Merrick may have violated policy, in Mason’s opinion, in how he responded.

Mason also accused Merrick of disclosing details of this personnel matter with others in the community when he attended the Turnaround Task Force meeting as a constituent, which she claims “violated the confidentiality of personnel information and interfered with the educator’s employment status.”

Mason wrote that the censure would show that Merrick has “a pattern of disregard for board policies and a lack of remorse for breaking them” and that it would “protect the rights of the school system and uphold the standards, reasonable expectations, and integrity of the board.”

Merrick responded that he thinks the resolution should be struck down and wrote in an email to his colleagues and Blanchard.

“You have left the board open to litigation by your clumsy attempts to silence for my support of our teachers,” he wrote.

Merrick noted that the resolution, which presumes his guilt, was created “without a motion and a vote to create a committee or direct the assembly to investigate, during closed sessions,” and that Mason failed to interview him and include key details. He suggests Mason’s resolution was “improper” and “in some instances, illegal.”

On Tuesday, citing Robert's Rules of Order, Merrick also asked for 30 days to prepare for his defense.

WHQR contacted Barnes and the board to see if they had any further comments. Barnes responded that he was out of the office dealing with a private matter and would respond as soon as possible. Mason and Barnhart each addressed specific questions but did not opt to provide any additional context on the censure process. We will update this article with any new information we receive.