The Crossley firm will continue for another school year
The legal firm’s contract extension came after one of Crossley’s attorneys, Brian Kromke, posted an inflammatory social media comment after the death of protestors shot by federal immigration enforcement officers in Minnesota.
Democrat Tim Merrick said he was taken aback by the motion because he thought the board was voting on a request for qualifications for new firms.
He told his colleagues that he felt “insulted” by the motion to extend Crossley's contract, introduced by Republican David Perry, as he believed that the firm had three strikes against them with Kromke’s behavior, that acknowledgement that education law isn’t their expertise, and a tax evasion charge from 2017 for two of the firm’s attorneys, Clay Collier and Andrew Hanley.
Merrick and Democrat Judy Justice did say they appreciated the work their main attorney, Norwood Blanchard, was doing for the district, despite his lack of educational legal experience.
Republican Josie Barnhart voted with Merrick and Justice against renewing the contract because "[it] was not a discussion for the agenda and felt blindside [sic] by the extension."
However, she said she wouldn't have supported the RFQ and agreed to continue working with Blanchard. She further claimed, as did some of her colleagues, that the Crossley firm is saving the district "10s of thousands of dollars, which means more staff in our schools."
Mason added that she liked that with this local firm, the district didn't have to pay travel costs. Some of the district's previous firms have essentially commuted from the Raleigh area to attend meetings.
WHQR did an analysis comparing the costs of previous firms, Tharrington Smith, LLC, and the Vogel Law Firm, over an eight-month period, which showed that Crossley and the Sink firms were costing the district less; however, they billed for 100 hours less. If Crossley had billed for 500 hours instead of 400, the costs could have been comparable. Additionally, the scope of work changes from year to year, which could have factored in.
While it’s still unclear whether Kromke will consult with the board in the future, they did discuss that Blanchard would be their main point of contact.
Republican Board Chair Pete Wildeboer told the public that he called each member to secure agreement that, moving forward, they would use Blanchard as counsel, responding to criticism that they should have taken a public vote.
Blanchard agreed that the board would have needed to take a vote if they were ending their contract with his firm, but selecting a certain legal representative from Crossley wouldn’t require that step.
Most of the Republican board members said that Kromke’s comments were inappropriate but that neither he nor his firm should be “cancelled” because of it. They also said he apologized for what he posted.
Barnhart said that if they went through with severing ties with the firm, then that would mean they would need to address the employment status of staff who wrote disparaging statements online about the death of Charlie Kirk, and subsequent comments about his widow, Erica Kirk. WHQR asked who or what she was referring to — and she responded,
"I cannot speak about staff. My statement stands that if we are wanting termination for profanity or insensitive comments as a board, we should direct that equally, not selectively," she said.
Resolution in support of Black History Month fails
Another contentious point of the evening was the debate over whether to pass a resolution in support of Black History Month, introduced by Merrick. Barnhart, along with Wildeboer, Melissa Mason, and Pat Bradford, voted it down. They more or less claimed the resolution was a political stunt by Merrick— and passed another motion to direct the staff to create lessons about African American history.
Their rationale, that resolutions are mainly meaningless or distractions, aligns with Republican New Hanover County Commissioner Dane Scalise’s comments about voting down a National Day of Racial Reconciliation for two years in a row. However, the other Republican commissioners, Bill Rivenbark and LeAnn Pierce, have supported it.
Wildeboer, in his chair’s report, said they needed to be fair in recognizing other groups, such as Hispanic Heritage Month and Principal and Teacher Appreciation Months, and questioned whether, if they passed this resolution, they might have to do it for other groups.
Barnhart said that this resolution didn’t do anything for the Black community, but what would is adding monthly lessons about their history.
Perry joined Democrats Merrick and Judy Justice in dissenting, saying the district already has this curriculum. Justice went so far as saying this was “insulting to our social studies teachers.” Superintendent Dr. Christopher Barnes affirmed that those classrooms do cover those topics.
Merrick said he wanted his colleagues to have this public vote, which, to him, meant whether they supported Black History Month.
Bradford said she and the board went to “great lengths to preserve local Black history.”
Merrick then responded, “What, like, banning a book?”
The board and the superintendent have imposed restrictions on two books written by Black authors, Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi, and Sharon Draper’s Blended, overruling the district's educators' committees, which didn’t want any restrictions on the books. While those books are available in some libraries, they cannot be used as part of a classroom reading.
Bradford got agitated and said that any claim that Republican colleagues don’t support Black history is a “flat-out lie.” She followed by advising Merrick to stop politicking and trying to gain social media followers and voter approval. Merrick is running for the N.C. House of Representatives, District 20. Bradford, along with Mason and Barnhart, is running to maintain her seat on the school board.
Merrick told his Republican colleagues, apart from Republican David Perry, who agreed that this resolution would be positive for the Black community because “words are important,” that they should stop banning books and flags in the district — and not to lay this “talk about respect” at his feet.
Barnhart accused one of the members of insulting a Black man — WHQR asked who this was, and she didn't respond to that question. It may have been a reference to a verbal altercation that Justice had with a public speaker last summer.
New Hanover County's NAACP President LeRon Montgomery issued a statement (see below) about being "deep[ly] disappoint[ed]" about the board's decision not pass the resolution.
First Amendment Speech strikes back
Another wrench in the evening was what to do when Republican candidate for school board Chris Sutton wanted to criticize Merrick for pronouncing at an earlier meeting that the board all agreed, without a vote, to sever ties with Kromke.
Perry called a ‘point of order’ because there is a policy that prohibits constituents from naming any board members during public comment. But there is nuance to that policy.
The policy states, “speakers can offer comments or criticism directed at substantive ideas, actions, or procedures of the Board and individual Board members, but in the interest of maintaining civility and decorum, speakers are to refrain from personal attacks and New Hanover County Board of Education Call to the Audience Procedures and Rules of Decorum insults directed at the Board, individual Board members, staff, or members of the general public.”
Wildeboer agreed with Perry; however, Blanchard thought Sutton could proceed. Blanchard, in the past, has said that speakers could address individual board members (a rule that has not always been clear), but could not cross over from policy critiques to “harassing” or a “personal attack.”
Sutton said it’s his First Amendment right to criticize board members individually, citing the ACLU and the UNC School of Government, which said this is allowable. Education advocate Sandy Eyles has gotten into this battle with members in the past when she tried to name Bradford in her speech in September, but she started with “If I choose to say that Pat [Bradford] or any other board member are dumb as rocks, my speech is protected, and unless I incite violence or make threats, you cannot silence me.”
In December, the Cabarrus County Board of Commissioners settled with a constituent who was removed from a meeting for calling out staff members by name and criticizing their treatment of him. As part of the settlement, the board must undergo training on First Amendment speech.
The director of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition, Pate McMichael, told Carolina Public Press, which covered the Cabarrus settlement, that, “It does not afford those councils the authority to compel speech — or censor speakers on certain topics. State law gives public councils the authority to maintain order and decorum, but that’s not a blank check to silence criticism. The resolution of this case makes the state’s democracy stronger.”
NAACP President LeRon Montgomery's statement:
Dear Members of the New Hanover County Board of Education,
On behalf of the NAACP New Hanover County Branch, we write to formally express our deep disappointment regarding the Board’s decision not to pass a resolution recognizing African American History Month.
African American History Month is not merely symbolic; it is a vital opportunity to acknowledge the historical contributions, struggles, resilience, and achievements of African Americans—many of which are deeply rooted in the history of New Hanover County itself. A formal resolution serves as a public affirmation of the Board’s commitment to inclusive education, historical accuracy, and respect for the diverse identities of the students and families you serve.
At a time when students are navigating complex social and historical realities, the absence of such recognition sends a troubling message. It risks minimizing the importance of African American history and undermines efforts to create an educational environment where all students feel seen, valued, and affirmed.
New Hanover County has a unique and often painful racial history that makes acknowledgment and education even more essential. Avoiding or declining formal recognition does not move our community forward; confronting history with honesty and courage does. Our students deserve leadership that embraces this responsibility.
We urge the Board to reconsider its position and take meaningful steps to affirm African American History Month. Doing so would demonstrate a commitment to equity, truth, and the educational well-being of all students in New Hanover County Schools.
The NAACP New Hanover County Branch remains committed to constructive dialogue and collaboration to support educational initiatives that reflect our shared values of justice, inclusion, and respect.
