The parent behind Republican board member David Perry’s alleged breach of confidentiality is Chris Sutton. Sutton is well known in the New Hanover County Schools community. He was an outspoken advocate for the survivors of sexual abuse perpetrated by former teacher Michael Earl Kelly, including some of his high school classmates — which contributed to him running for school board in 2022, although he lost in the Republican primary.
Sutton's son has some medical issues, and he wanted him to go to Eaton Elementary for the year-round calendar consistency and accessibility to transportation for his after-school program. But current board policy stated he couldn’t be granted an appeal for ‘hardship’ for the district’s two lottery schools, Eaton being one of them, so he asked for a discretionary appeal under policy 1740.
Sutton followed standard procedure by entering the Eaton lottery along with other families, but found out on April 22 that his son didn’t get in. Sutton told WHQR that administrators suggested his son get an official IEP evaluation completed before filing his discretionary appeal, so Sutton had that done.
On June 6, he requested an appeal and, according to policy, the clock for responding to him within 30 days started on June 7 when Assistant Superintendent Julie Varnam acknowledged his request in writing.
As time passed, Sutton was getting anxious about when his appeal would be held. Perry and Sutton know each other, and while not close friends, Perry thought he would let Sutton know his appeal was coming up to alleviate some of the stress of waiting.
On June 24, at 5:05 p.m., Perry texted Sutton to tell him his appeal would be on July 2, and let him know the time. Though Sutton wouldn't find out until later, Republican Board Chair Melissa Mason apparently recused herself from any potential hearing that same day — Sutton thinks it’s because they are more or less friends. Perry said it’s likely because Sutton is friends with Mason’s husband.
Not long after, Mason found out about Perry's text. And, though she had apparently recused herself, she had the meeting cancelled. Later, Perry's text became the grounds — at least in part — for his fellow board members to schedule a special meeting, accusing Perry of violating confidentiality rules.
Sutton told WHQR that NHCS Superintendent Dr. Chris Barnes called him to tell him that Mason was uncomfortable with Perry's text message, and that's why she cancelled the scheduled appeal hearing.
Note: WHQR told all parties we intended to publish an article over the weekend or, at the very least, before Perry's hearing, scheduled for early Monday afternoon. Barnes didn't respond to a request for comment on his role in this story. Mason responded on Friday morning, saying she would respond but it would take her time to work through WHQR's questions. This article will be updated with whatever responses she provides if and when they are received.
Email records shed more light on the fallout
A district employee, Sue Henry, called Sutton to tell him the date and time of his apeal hearing, but then Sutton, having heard from Perry, told her he already knew. This information traveled back up the chain of command to Assistant Superintendent Varnam and then Superintendent Barnes.
In an email sent on June 26, Barnes wrote, in part, “I must express concern because this isn’t the first time we have had evidence of information from closed session being communicated.” WHQR asked Barnes to identify those other instances; he did not respond.
In his email, Barnes added further, “I am concerned with having an appeal if there is evidence of communication from another source because it invalidates the appeal process since it shows we have violated our own policies. I am unsure as to how to proceed but I want to highlight the seriousness of this issue.”
Barnes did not elaborate which policies those were.
The next day, on June 27, Mason sent an email telling the board that a member had breached confidentiality by giving a time and date for a hearing. She wrote that, because of this, she had “made the decision to postpone the upcoming discretionary hearing. The rationale for this delay is that the parent has received ex parte information, which compromises the impartiality of the hearing process and raises concerns about the objectivity and integrity of board members.”
In this email exchange, Democratic board member Judy Justice responded that Sutton had tried calling her and told him that she couldn’t talk to him because “I cannot fairly hear the case.”
Justice also provided additional context about the Sutton case, writing, “this whole situation is why he persuaded other board members to look at our policy when it comes to specialty schools. I agree that citizens have the right to pursue policy change but this whole situation has gotten very complicated.”
She added that, although she considered Sutton a friend, she felt he “didn’t understand professional boundaries at times.”
Mason wrote to all board members on July 1 — the day before Sutton’s scheduled hearing. She said that Perry had come forward to admit he was the person who sent the message. She acknowledged that board member Pete Wildeboer was to preside over the hearing — and that the board had to comply with a 48-hours’ notice prior to any meetings or hearings. Since this information was received after that deadline, it was necessary to postpone the meeting to remain in compliance.
Sutton said they were already discussing his appeal case starting on June 24 so his case could have been heard at a special meeting scheduled for the following day. That meeting was noticed on Monday, June 23, but they chose instead, to schedule it for July 2.
On July 1, Mason wrote to ask the board’s opinion: should they defer Sutton’s hearing to a neighboring school board, designate a panel of board members to conduct the hearing, or proceed with the hearing with available members.
She then said they needed to address whether the text message constituted a policy violation, what if any actions should be taken in response, and then what measures they should take to prevent this in the future.
On July 2, Perry wrote that he didn’t want to reschedule Sutton’s appeal. He said that Mason didn’t have the right to determine whether a member could be impartial or not, that it’s up to each individual member to determine that. There have been several past hearings where that was discussed by the board.
Perry reiterated that Sutton’s hearing needed to be scheduled as soon as possible since year-round schools were starting up again soon, on July 16.
Later that day, Perry wrote another email saying that he had already identified himself as the board member who told Sutton about his hearing date. He said he did not reveal anything else about the closed session, only the date and time.
“I strongly believe that I broke no law or board policy when I relayed information to him that he had a right to know. Perhaps, I broke standard protocol but that is all,” he wrote.
He told Mason, who had recused herself, not to cancel the scheduled hearing. “I don’t necessarily blame you for being concerned that other information from the closed session might have been revealed to Mr. Sutton. However, I do not believe you have the authority to unilaterally postpone the hearing over these concerns.”
Sutton came to the public comment period on July 8 to discuss the board’s failure to act within the 30 day-timeline to have the hearing. He said the board could have heard his appeal along with other student assignment cases that were noticed publicly 48-hours beforehand.
“I have begged over and over again for my son’s case to be done as quickly as possible since time is of the essence,” he said during the public comment period.
Eventually, Sutton’s hearing was rescheduled for July 11 and Sutton said his expert couldn’t make it. He eventually found out his appeal was denied.
Sutton maintains his concerns, and willingness to go on the record, are not about his family’s school assignment denial, but what the board members are doing to Perry — making him sit for a special meeting for a breach of confidentiality.
Private text chain
While the board members are accusing Perry of impropriety, he said four members were discussing board business in text messages. Specifically, they discussed Sutton’s request that Republican Pat Bradford be recused from his hearing, because he felt she disliked him and could not be impartial.
According to text messages shared by Perry, on the day of Sutton’s July 11 hearing, Bradford texted — “Barnes said Sutton had asked if I could be excluded from the pannel [sic] . Did you know that?” The text chain included Mason, Justice, Bradford, and Perry.
Mason texted, “Four board members – open meeting. Please text each other separately.”
As Mason indicated, four members forms a quorum, the legal requirement for an official meeting, regardless of whether it's in person or remote. Discussions of public business by a quorum constitute a meeting, which are legally required to be noticed to the public ahead of time.
Bradford didn’t confirm or deny the text message.
Sutton himself put in a public records request on July 16 for all communications between board members to include “Chris” “Sutton” “Appeal” “Recuse” and “Recusal”. Those documents, he said, could be emails, texts, and social messages.
Sutton said he’s giving permission to Perry to discuss his case openly as he is the parent behind the appeal. The board attorney, Norwood Blanchard, told the board at the July agenda review meeting, when Perry’s special meeting was scheduled, not to run afoul of FERPA which is the federal law surrounding student confidentiality.
Perry’s response to allegations
“There's just a lot of political machinations going on,” he said.
Perry believes that this special meeting was really called because of his troubled history with both Bradford and Mason.
He said his differences with Bradford started before they were on the board together. He said after his public comment calling into question the controversial classroom display policy that was introduced and pushed by Bradford, she told him at a Cape Fear Republican Women’s Club meeting if he didn’t get into line and get on the same page as the other Republicans, she would tell all her friends not to vote for him. He also claimed she was upset that the Republican Liberty Caucus, which Perry chaired, didn’t endorse her.
He added Bradford was also upset that he didn’t back her for board chair, and because he helped vote down the state sponsored $3.2 million AI pilot program.
“I think she's a very controlling person, and who doesn't like it when she doesn't get her way,” he said.
As for the breach of closed session, Perry noted that state law stipulates that just because something is said in closed session doesn’t mean it is automatically protected. It has to directly break a state statute about a particular topic.
Perry said some of the board members have this false impression of the rules surrounding closed sessions, adding that Bradford and other members would prefer “having [discussions] in a smoke-filled room, and not have to deal with the open meetings law.”
As for Mason, he said he’s been her biggest supporter but they’ve been on the outs since she removed him as chair of the policy committee.
“I was humiliated because I just made a [social media] post a couple of days prior, saying ‘Thank you for your confidence in me, Ms. Mason, I'm going to do a great job with the policy committee,’ but then I looked like a fool,” he said.
Mason faced a formal rebuke from the Republican Party for putting Democratic board members on school board committees. Some members accused Mason of dealing committee assignments for votes for her position as chair. Democratic Board members Tim Merrick and Justice, along with Perry and Mason herself voted in favor of her leadership.
Mason later told Perry that his selection as policy committee chair was only a draft but Perry sent the document — and “draft” was not marked anywhere. He said he thinks she bowed to pressure from the Republican Party.
Perry himself said the standard bearers of the party didn’t back him in 2024 — and campaign finance records lend some legitimacy to his argument. He was the only Republican to win a seat last year, though by a margin of about 300 votes; Republicans Nikki Bascome and Natosha Tew both lost.
He also thinks this history contributed to the lack of support in the vote on his proposed teacher bonus committee. Perry pointed to the committee already being greenlit in April in a 5-2 vote, with Bradford and Justice dissenting; however, there was another vote at Tuesday’s agenda review and the committee was tabled until the following school year, which upset Perry leading to a hot mic moment where he muttered the word “jackasses.”
Now facing potential disciplinary measures of his own, Perry said he now regrets voting to censure Merrick four months ago.
“I went along with it, and the more I think about it, the more I think they found a way single him out and push him around, and what he did might have been technically wrong, but I don't think he was intending anything that was such a breach that a warning wouldn't have sufficed,” he said.
Perry addresses his language, says he wants to do better
Perry acknowledges that he has to control his language while discussing issues, both on the dais and on social media.
With regards to Tuesday’s hot-mic moment, he said he wasn’t really directing profanity at anyone but voicing his frustration about the vote.
“I mean, as far as my language is concerned, I need to be more careful about that, I should have told myself before I went into that meeting that people were going to be screwing with me and be prepared for it,” he said.
He also said he regrets a comment he made about families he felt were “sucking off welfare” during a July policy committee meeting.
WHQR asked about his social media fights with progressive community members over trans rights and equity issues. He responded that he wants to stand up for what he believes in, but acknowledged that his engagement with the community needs to be better.
“People can yell some pretty ugly crap at you online, and if you're not careful, you can get sucked into saying something you regret later,” he said.
Perry said he doesn’t know what specific policies or statutes the board is claiming he violated. He thinks they might also bring up his comments about the PowerSchool breach on Monday. He said he didn’t do anything wrong either, except for not letting the superintendent speak about it first. He said the news had already been out about what happened and was giving his point of view.
WHQR asked Mason and Bradford, who made the original motion to hold a hearing on Perry’s actions, which specific statutes and board policies Perry has violated — and what specifically prevents him from giving Sutton the date and time of his hearing. Mason mentioned policy 2120, which covers board ethics — but didn’t specify a specific section of the extensive policy.
Bradford wrote to WHQR, “The board of education will sit in a quasi-judicial hearing on breach of confidentiality and policy by a board member on Monday; essentially deciding the matter as judge and jury. The facts will be presented then. I take my fiduciary responsibilities seriously. I will be happy to provide truthful clarity to accusations and questions following the hearing, however, I will continue to be bound by closed session confidentiality and FERPA.”
What’s next
Perry’s hearing is scheduled for Monday, August 4, at 1 p.m. He said he believes they will move to censure him — and that one possible consequence could be his removal from a committee. He said he doesn’t know what else they can do as an elected official. As Perry has noted on social media, unless a board member is convicted of a felony (or moves out of their jurisdiction), there are almost no options for removing an elected official.
