Comments for Some Refreshing Change at School Board Meetings | Eastern NC Now

What also needs to be recognized are the significant changes in policy that were accomplished at the last school board meeting. The board unanimously adopted my proposal to amend our curriculum policy to prohibit the inclusion of the woke DEI ideology in our curriculum. My motion to remove "gender identity" and "sexual preference" as being part of "discrimination based on sex" both places it previously appeared in our policies was also passed unanimously. Now our Title IX policies are back to reflecting the way Congress wrote them, to protect women, not other groups whose interests are often contrary to those of women.

Success on issues like those reflects talking to and working with other board members. Some of them may not agree with me on every issue, but we agree on some issues, and by keeping open lines of communication, instead of throwing grenades, we can move forward on constructive policy that reflects the viewpoints of our citizens in Beaufort County.

On the issue of the school board attorney, there were two separate groups talking among themselves on trying to get a local attorney. When Daniel Hudson was the first to bring it up before the board, it offered an opportunity to put together a majority to do that. Indeed, our initial decision to put together a Request for Proposals (RFP) to do that was unanimous.

While I have not confirmed who actually wrote the RFP that was presented, it included a kink that divided the board. That was making the local attorney subservient to the out of town attorney, the reverse of the way most school boards and other local government bodies operate. Usually the local attorney is the primary attorney, and brings in specialized assistance from specialized attorneys as needed for lawsuits and some other matters.

I made a motion to rewrite the RFP to make the local attorney the primary attorney, consistent with the usual policy of local boards. The question was raised about Tharrington Smith being brought in as needed on specialized matters, something I had no problem with as it is the usual way legal representation for local government boards work. However, the member who seconded my motion clearly did not want Tharrington Smith involved at all and withdrew the second. Prior to that, I thought we had a reasonable chance of getting a majority to change the RFP. With the second withdrawn, another motion was made to approve the RFP as written, which then passed 5 to 4.

There is a reason why bringing in specialized counsel is sometimes necessary, and is often done by local attorneys for school boards, counties, and cities. Many legal matters are straightforward and have little of nothing to do with policy, but having an attorney familiar with the nuances of handling them makes the odds of success in the legal matter much better.

The example I used was a case I brought on behalf of a high school girl some years ago against Lenoir County Schools. The law and evidence were strongly in my clients favor and I was confident we would be granted the relief we asked for in our written pleadings. However, the local school board attorney, who clearly had no background in such proceedings bungled the school board's case so badly that in my oral argument, I asked for much more far reaching (and much more expensive for the school system) relief and the court granted it. The school system would have saved a lot of money if they had brought in someone specialized in such proceedings instead of having their local attorney try to wing it.

The reason it is important to have a local school board attorney who has similar policy stances to the local community and local board is that while many legal issues have no ideological, philosophical, or political aspects, there are also many issues that arise where law and policy are intertwined and the applicable law can be argued more than one way. When I attended the recent Law Conference put on by the NC School Boards Association, questions to presenters on such issues were always responded to with "ask your local board attorney". When such issues arise, it is best to have a local school board attorney who is in tune with prevailing local opinion of both the community and board.

Commented: Thursday, October 30th, 2025 @ 6:21 pm By: Steven P. Rader

Terry Williams, Word smithing does not work. The issue with the lawyer originated in the Conservative Club more that two years ago. You have sat there more than two years and done nothing about it. If you nit picked your job on the board like you do my writing you would be an effective board member.
I notice the school board meeting has been changed to the same night as the county commissioners meet so I cannon attend an take notes on you and the rest of the RINOs. I will do your nit pick for you on this one. You are going to claim the meeting was changed so athletes could attend to receive their awards from the board. Denying the public access to information and observation about how inept you and your cohorts are is a corruption of the system.

Commented: Thursday, October 30th, 2025 @ 8:01 am By: Hood Richardson

Jeff: Whether Steve started this conversation on the board of education or not, Steve would have finished it if the conversation on changing the attorney had not gone particularly well in the affirmative on doing what is ultimately right.

I do know Steve Rader at least that well.

Commented: Wednesday, October 29th, 2025 @ 5:03 pm By: Stan Deatherage

Well, it was at least refreshing to see that Steve Rader corrected you on your statement that Daniel Hudson and myself was "trying to steal Steve Rader's fire" on suggesting we hire a local attorney. It was indeed Daniel Hudson who brought it before the board after he and I discussed this multiple times. Secondly, your comment that "I stated I would never vote for anyone other than Tharrington and Smith to represent the school board" is grossly incorrect. I stated I would not vote to remove them from retainer but voted to search for a local attorney to use on a day to day basis. Thirdly, your comment that CPS Principal was incorrect on stating that Snowden parents and students are completely happy at CPS, an "A" rated school, shows you haven't been at the school. I've visited the school at least 10 times since August and see how much these students are benefitting. Maybe try visiting the school yourself. Your readers deserve better or better yet watch the video themselves.

Commented: Wednesday, October 29th, 2025 @ 1:58 pm By: Terry Williams

Consider this query: Just how Leftist does one have to be to make the grade of Chairman of the Democratic Socialist party in the Sanctuary County, by local choice, of Durham?

Commented: Wednesday, October 29th, 2025 @ 9:03 am By: Stan Deatherage

Isn't this present school board attorney the chairman of the Durham County Democrat Party? Why is such a partisan activist Democrat serving as school board attorney for a mostly Republican school board in a different part of the state? Apparently he never revealed that to the board himself. Why not? Also, apparently Cheeseman never revealed it. Why not? It seems like an attorney should be up front about things like that when representing a board elected in partisan elections.

Commented: Tuesday, October 28th, 2025 @ 9:27 am By: Rino Hunter

While I appreciate the compliment, I do want to point out that the first suggestion of hiring a local attorney in a recent meeting came from board member Daniel Hudson, something many of the rest of us support. Unfortunately, the RFP was drafted to make that local attorney play second fiddle to an out of town attorney, the exact reverse of the way most school boards and other local governments operate. Unfortunately, we were one vote short on reversing that RFP to bring us in line with standard practice. An example is neighboring Craven County, where a local attorney has long served as their principle school board attorney, but regularly uses Tharrington Smith for specialized services dealing with personnel disputes and sometimes other matters. (It was incorrectly contended at the last board meeting by one member that Tharrington Smith was the Craven school board's primary attorney).

Board attorneys deal with lots of routine legal matters, but also play important roles when policy issues and legal issues are intertwined, which they often are. In those situations, it is important to have a board attorney who is on the same policy wavelength as the board he is supposed to serve. A good example of that is the dispute over injecting Title IX's prohibition of discrimination based on sex with a new definition that included things like gender identity and sexual orientation, a position that undercuts Title IX's original purpose of protecting women's rights. Lawyers throughout the profession have split on that issue on their legal opinions based on their own ideological policy preferences. There are many other issues like that one.

On the Title IX front, I am happy to report that the School Board voted unanimously at our last meeting to remove previous language from our policies that had previously included gender identity and sexual orientation as part of "discrimination based on sex". We are now back to the way Congress intended Title IX to operate to protect womens rights.

Commented: Monday, October 27th, 2025 @ 10:02 pm By: Steven P. Rader