NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS ************************************
TIFFANY N. TUBE-WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellee, From New Hanover County No. 12-CVS-3128
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A/KJA NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOLS, Respondent-Appellant. ***************************************************
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATORS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER-APPELLEE *************************************************** INDEX TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES
I. THE BOARD DEPRIVED MS. TUBE-WILLIAMS OF HER RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. 2 A. Ms. Tobe-Williams was entitled to due process rights to ensure the Board's action did not violate the statutory standards on nonrenewal of contracts 2 B. The Board failed to fulfill its duty to ensure its decisionmaking process was a fair and lawful process 4 1. In seeking out limited evidence and failing to follow its own policy governing personnel files, the Board did
not provide Ms. Tobe-Williams fair and open-minded consideration. 6 2. The Board's prejudiced consideration of evidence and lack of a fair process fails to enable a court to ensure it acted for lawful reasons. 9 3. A board simply asserting that it can find a better administrator is insufficient to ensure it was not acting for one of the prohibited reasons. 11 4. The efforts of this Board to maneuver around notice and hearing rights have implications for constitutional due process and generally held principles of fairness 12 IL A FAIR DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE IS CRITICAL TO ENCOURAGING PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATORS TO BRING CONCERNS WITHOUT FEAR OF UNLAWFUL ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION 14 A. Educators are in a unique position to bring important concerns about the administration of public schools and 14 conditions in schools Local boards of education should ensure a fair decisionB. making process is provided to employees especially where they have made whistleb lower reports. 16 CONCLUSION
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES CASES Abell v. Nash County Bd. of Educ., 71 N.C. App. 48, 321 S.E.2d 502 (1984) 5 Bd. of Regents of State Coils. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 567 (1972)
Crump v. Bd. of Educ. of Hickoty Admin. Sch. Unit, 326 N.C. 603, 392 5 S.E.2d 579 (1990) Evers v. Fender County Bd. of Educ., 104 N.C. App. 1, 407 S.E.2d 879 9 (1991) Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 576 (1975)
Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (1960)
San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004)
STATUTES Appropriations Act of 2013, 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws 360, § 9.6
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-287.1(b)
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-287.1(c)
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-287.1(d)
2,3, 12, 14
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-325(b)
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-325(m)(2)
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-84(a)
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-85
Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act, § 95-240 et seq.
iv OTHER AUTHORITIES New Hanover County Bd. of Educ., Policy 1240, available at http://www.nhcs.net/po1icies/series1000/1240.pdf 5 New Hanover County Bd. of Educ., Policy 6340, available at http://www.nhcs.net/policies/series6000/6340.pdf 7 New Hanover County Bd. of Education, Policy 6450, available at http://www.nhcs.net/ policies/series6000/6450.pdf 10
No. COA 13-679
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS ************************************
TIFFANY N. TOBE-WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellee, From New Hanover County No. 12-CVS-3128
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A/K/A NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOLS, Respondent-Appellant. ***************************************************
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATORS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER-APPELLEE *************************************************** Pursuant to Rule 28(i) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, the North Carolina Association of Educators submits this brief as amicus curiae, along with its Motion for Leave to File Arnicus Curiae Brief, in support of the Petitioner-Appellee, Tiffany N. Tobe-Williams. During the term of her four-year administrator contract with New Hanover County Schools, Ms. Tobe-Williams brought forth important concerns relating to a school's financial practices and the health and safety of students in another school. Ms. Tobe-Williams' superintendent initially recommended she be granted a renewal contract. This recommendation was then withdrawn and remade at a later
board meeting. meeting. Respondent-Appellant, the New Hanover County Board of Education ("Board"), voted to deny her a renewed contract. In making its decision, the Board failed to provide a fair procedure to ensure that its decision was not based on an unlawful reason, including one relating to Ms. Tobe-Williams' whistleblower actions. QUESTION PRESENTED I. SHOULD THE SUPERIOR COURT'S ORDER REVERSING THE BOARD'S DECISION BE AFFIRMED ON THE BASIS THAT THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW FAIR AND LAWFUL PROCEDURE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE WHISTLEB LOWER INTERESTS AT STAKE? ARGUMENT I. THE BOARD DEPRIVED MS. TOBE-WILLIAMS OF HER RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. A. Ms. Tobe-Williams was entitled to due process rights to ensure the Board's action did not violate the statutory standards on nonrenewal of contracts. School administrators have written contracts with local boards of education specifying the term of employment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-287.1(c). A school board may decide to not renew an administrator's contract only after establishing a basis that is not arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, personal, or political. 115C-287.1(d). This same standard applies when boards decide to not offer a renewal contract to a probationary teacher. § 115C-325(m)(2). The statutory
-3scheme and generally held principles of fairness are intended to ensure that an administrator does not lose the position for one of the impermissible reasons. Here, the Board failed to meet these minimal standards. The statute governing school administrator contracts provides that after an initial contract, a subsequent contract between an administrator and a local board must be for four years. § 115C-287.1(b). Toward the end of an administrator's contract term, the superintendent can either recommend the administrator be offered a new, renewed, or extended contract or decide not to make such a recommendation. § 11 5C-287.1(d). If the superintendent does not recommend the board offer a renewed contract, he must give the administrator written notice of his decision and the reasons for it. The superintendent's reasons may not be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, personal, or political. Id. "If a school administrator files a timely request for a hearing, the local board shall conduct a hearing pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 115C-45(c) and make a final decision on whether to offer the school administrator a new, renewed, or extended school administrator's contract." Id. Here, the superintendent recommended the Board grant a renewal contract. At the Board's June 5, 2012 meeting, however, the superintendent removed Ms. Tobe-Williams' name from his list of administrators recommended for renewal. (RS pp 5-6). The superintendent did not provide notice to Ms. Tobe-Williams that
-4he withdrew his recommendation. She even contacted the district between the Board meetings noting she had not heard anything regarding her contract renewal. (R p 244). Before the next board meeting, there was an effort to gather negative information about Ms. Tobe-Williams, including seeking a memorandum written by a principal who had not worked with her in three years. This effort was not shared with Ms. Tobe-Williams nor was she afforded any opportunity to rebut the document prior to the July 10, 2012 Board meeting. At this meeting, the superintendent again recommended renewal of the contract, which was unanimously rejected by the Board. (RS p 10). If the superintendent had changed his recommendation to one of non-renewal, it would have triggered the statutory provision that would have required him to give notice of this recommendation and the reasons for it. This orchestrated maneuver deprived Ms. Tobe-Williams of the automatic right to know the reasons and the opportunity to challenge the evidence in a heating. This maneuver, however, did not alleviate the Board of its responsibility to provide a process that creates a reasonable record and comports with at least minimal standards of due process. The Board failed to fulfill its duty to ensure its decision-making B. process was a fair and lawful process. "Whenever a government tribunal, be it a court of law or a school board, considers a case in which it may deprive a person of life, liberty or property, it is
-5fundamental to the concept of due process that the deliberative body give that person's case fair and open-minded consideration." Crump v. Bd. of Educ. of Hickory Admin. Sc/i. Unit, 326 N.C. 603, 613, 392 S.E.2d 579, 584 (1990). The Board's policy setting forth its own code of ethics requires that board members obey all applicable laws, uphold the integrity and independence of their offices, avoid impropriety in the exercise of official duties, perform faithfully the duties of the office, and conduct the Board's affairs in an open and public manner. Each Board member also commits to "Mender all decisions based on the available facts and independent judgment." New Hanover County Bd. of Educ., Policy 1240, available at http://www.nhcs.net/policies/series1000/1240.pdf. This Court has held that the statute prohibiting nonrenewal of probationary teachers based on the same unlawful reasons imposes "a duty on boards of education to determine the substantive bases for recommendations of non-renewal and to assure that non-renewal is not for a prohibited reason." Abell v. Nash County Bd. of Educ., 71 N.C. App. 48, 52, 321 S.E.2d 502, 506 (1984). For a reviewing court to be able to determine whether a decision was arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with the law, the administrative record must disclose what factors were considered in reaching the decision. Id. at 54, 321 S.E.2d at 507. The Board's process in determining whether to renew Ms. TobeWilliams' administrator contract and the record it created prevents this Court from
-6determining if the statute was met or if the Board acted based on one of the impermissible reasons including that she brought important whistleb lower concerns. Because the Board did not provide Ms. Tobe-Williams a hearing or follow a process designed to obtain complete information, this Court does not have sufficient information to ensure the statute's nonrenewal standards have been met. A board must provide at least some process to administrators to ensure it makes a lawful decision and obtains complete information relevant to the renewal decision. While a board hearing would be the easiest and most efficient way to obtain complete information before making a renewal decision, other processes may also sufficiently allow an administrator or a reviewing court to determine whether the board acted for one of the prohibited reasons. 1. In seeking out limited evidence and failing to follow its own policy governing personnel files, the Board did not provide Ms. lobeWilliams fair and open-minded consideration. Between the two Board meetings, the Board and the superintendent sought out information that would support a nonrenewal decision. For example, her former principal, Robin Meiers, wrote a memorandum to the superintendent dated June 27, 2012 regarding her performance in 2008-2009. (R pp 185-86). While the Board sought out this evidence, it failed to even talk to Ms. TobeWilliams or allow her the opportunity to respond to the memorandum. On or
7before July 12, 2012, the Board's attorney informed her there were additions to her personnel file. She requested a copy of her file on July 12, 2012 and received a copy of it on July 17, 2012, after the Board's July 10, 2012 nonrenewal vote. (R pp 183-84). Ms. Tobe-Williams had not previously received a copy of Ms. Meiers' memorandum and was never given an opportunity to respond or rebut the information in the memorandum before the Board made its decision. (R pp 18586). Not only did this practice create clear bias and unfairly deprive her of the opportunity to respond, it also violated requirements for submission of documents to her personnel file. Ms. Meiers' memorandum and a June 1, 2011, letter from another one of her principals, Pansy Rumley, were not properly placed in her personnel file. (R pp 383-84). Under state statute, a complaint, commendation, or suggestion shall not be placed in a teacher's personnel file until five days' notice has been provided to the teacher. Further, any denial or explanation relating to the document that the teacher desires to make shall also be placed in the file. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-325(b). The Board has expanded this statute through its own policy requiring any employee receive five days notice before a document is placed in her personnel file and noting the employee's right to place in the file an explanation or denial. New Hanover County Bd. of Educ., Policy 6340, available at http://www.nhcs.net/policies/series6000/6340.pdf. Further, the district has had a
-8practice of providing the five days' notice to Ms. Tobe-Williams before placing other documents in her file. (R pp 26, 402). Ms. Tobe-Williams did not receive five days' notice before the letters were placed in her personnel file.
The Board's attorney notifying her that new
documents were in her personnel file indicates the policy was not followed since she did not receive the required notice prior to them going in her file. The record does not indicate when the documents went in her file or when the attorney informed her they were in the file. Ms. Meiers' memorandum notes what she says would have been Ms. TobeWilliams' ratings if there was a formal evaluation in 2008-2009. Ms. Meiers states Ms. Tobe-Williams did not contribute to positive school climate, refused to work with the treasurer, did not exhibit successful conflict resolution, and that she did not want to sign payroll sheets. (R pp 185-86). Ms. Tobe-Williams had a strong interest in responding to this letter to rebut Ms. Meiers' allegations, especially as they relate to her concerns regarding financial matters and the resulting grievance. Indeed, without a hearing or an opportunity to review and respond to such a document relied on by a board in its nonrenewal decision, an educator would have no recourse if the letter contained wholly fabricated, unsupported allegations.
-92. The Board's prejudiced consideration of evidence and lack of a fair process fails to enable a court to ensure it acted for lawful reasons. The memorandum from Ms. Meiers was written three years after the alleged conduct occurred. During those three years, Ms. Meiers did not serve as Ms. Tobe-Williams' principal and her recollection of Ms. Tobe-Williams' performance likely faded. Ms. Meiers was also biased in that Ms. Tobe-Williams had brought concerns regarding financial practices she believed were illegal or contrary to policy, ultimately resulting in her filing a grievance. (R pp 440-42). This Court has held that evidence in a teacher dismissal hearing is competent and may be admitted into evidence if it "can be said to be of a kind commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of serious affairs." Evers v. Fender County Bd. of Educ., 104 N.C. App. 1, 19, 407 S.E.2d 879, 889 (1991) affd, 331 N.C. 380, 416 S.E.2d 3 (1992). Ms. Meiers' memorandum, written three years after the fact by a biased individual, does not constitute competent evidence on which the Board can rely. Further, the Board admits it relied on Ms. Tobe-Williams' grievances and complaints, even implying they were excessive. In an attempt to argue that it fulfilled its duty to review documentation, the Board argues in its brief that it reviewed documentation including Ms. Tobe-Williams' "voluminous complaints, grievances and rebuttals." (Appellant Br. 24). The Board's own grievance policy
-10states that employees have the right to present problems for solution and shall be encouraged to do so without fear of recrimination. The policy prohibits reprisals by the Board against an employee on account of her participation in a grievance. New Hanover County Bd. of Education, Board Policy 6450, available at http://www.nhcs.net/ policies/series6000/6450.pdf. In that same policy, the Board states its belief that "every effort should be made to ensure that each employee receives fair and impartial treatment."
While the Board's resolution
acknowledges that Ms. Tobe-Williams brought forth legitimate issues that needed to be corrected, it appears to have used her grievances and complaints against her to conclude she had communication problems with two of her principals. (R pp 32-33). Amicus party the North Carolina School Boards Association (NCSBA) characterizes Ms. lobe-Williams as poisoning the work environment. The Board sought out and received information from Ms. Tobe-Williams' former principals to help it make the allegations of her being at fault for communication problems and poisoning the work environment, but it failed to give fair consideration to these issues by not receiving any information from Ms. lobe-Williams. This all occurred after the superintendent had presumably full access to information regarding her performance and decided to recommend renewal. By only reviewing one side of the information, the Board failed to create a proper record for a court to
-11determine whether it reached a rational conclusion or acted based on an arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, personal, or political reason as prohibited under the statute by choosing to non-renew an employee who exercised legal rights in order to bring attention to health and safety concerns. A Board hearing would have shed some light on whether the Board cherry-picked evidence and information it sought. The Board did not create a record that would establish a fair review. The Board member who moved to reject the renewal did not even review the documents relating to the decision. (R p 182; RS p 10). It is also unclear what, if any, discussion the Board held at the July 10, 2012 meeting regarding Ms. TobeWilliams. The Board maintains that at the meeting it discussed her performance and conduct with the Superintendent and others and discussed the documentation that had been reviewed. (R p 27). The 70-minute meeting consisted of several important votes on other personnel matters, policy issues, and multiple contracts. (RS p 10-13). It is therefore unclear how the Board could have given careful deliberation to the decision to not renew Ms. Tobe-Williams or the content of its seven-page resolution signed that day. A board simply asserting that it can find a better administrator 3. is insufficient to ensure it was not acting for one of the prohibited reasons. The NCSBA maintains that it is permissible for a board to not renew an administrator simply because it believes a better administrator is available. A
-12board could always indicate that a better teacher or administrator may be found, but this fails to allow a court to determine whether the actual reason for nonrenewal was, for example, discriminatory. If the General Assembly's recent elimination of career status is upheld, all teachers will be placed on limited contracts. Boards would then be prohibited from denying a renewal contract based on the same prohibited reasons that apply to administrators. Appropriations Act of 2013, 2013 N.C. Sess. Laws 360, § 9.6(b) (adding § 115C-325.3(e)). The vague reason that a better administrator or teacher can be found is insufficient for a court to determine if the statute has been met in the renewal process since the court would not have sufficient information to determine, for example, if an administrator was being nonrenewed on the basis of her whistleb lowing concerns, as is the case here. Especially without requirements for notice, hearings, and creating of a record, allowing boards to use such a vague reason of being able to find someone better would effectively render the statute meaningless. The efforts of this Board to maneuver around notice and 4. hearing rights have implications for constitutional due process and generally held principles of fairness. An administrator's statutory rights under § 115C-287.1(d) to not be nonrenewed for certain reasons and to appeal a nonrenewal decision creates an interest in continued employment and implicates constitutional due process protections. cf. Bd. of Regents of State coils. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 567, 566-67
-13(1972) (assistant professor completing one-year employment contract did not have a property interest implicated because there were "no statutory or administrative standards defining eligibility for re-employment," leaving officials "unfettered discretion" whether to rehire a nontenured teacher for another year and regulations provided no review or appeal). Ms. Tobe-Williams' interest in continued employment based on the statute is beyond de minimis, and its gravity is irrelevant to the question of whether constitutional due process protections are implicated. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 576 (1975). An administrator with a risk of losing her position and being denied a renewal contract has at least a minimum property interest entitling her to minimum constitutional due process protections. These due process rights should also help ensure the Board has met the statute and has not acted for one of the prohibited reasons. As held by the Supreme Court, "[d]ue process' is an elusive concept. Its exact boundaries are undefinable, and its content varies according to specific factual contexts. . . . Whether the Constitution requires that a particular right obtain in a specific proceeding depends upon a complexity of factors," including the nature of the right involved, the nature of the proceeding, and the possible burden on that proceeding. Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 442 (1960). Because of the important whistleblower interests at stake, the Board should have provided Ms.
-14Tobe-Williams a fair process, which may have included providing a Board hearing, following its notice policy for personnel file documents, allowing her to provide a response to the information the Board obtained, and giving her an opportunity to provide her own information for the Board's consideration. Although § 115C-287.1(d) states that these statutory due process rights are provided when a superintendent does not recommend renewal of an administrator's contract, only a superintendent's recommendation for renewal made fairly and in good faith should deprive the administrator of these important rights. Here, the superintendent cannot be said to have made his second recommendation for renewal in good faith and in the spirit of the statute. II. A FAIR DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURE IS CRITICAL TO ENCOURAGING PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATORS TO BRING CONCERNS WITHOUT FEAR OF UNLAWFUL ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION. Educators are in a unique position to bring important concerns about A. the administration of public schools and conditions in schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that "public employees are often the members of the community who are likely to have informed opinions as to the operations of their public employers, operations which are of substantial concern to the public." San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 82 (2004) (citing Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. High Sc/i. Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563, 572 (1968)). In North Carolina, state employees are encouraged under the Whistleblower Act to report
-15evidence of activity by a state agency or state employee that constitutes a violation of state or federal law, rule or regulation; fraud; misappropriation of state resources; substantial and specific danger to public health and safety; or gross mismanagement, a gross waste of monies, or gross abuse of authority. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-84(a). Employees reporting such activity are protected from retaliation. § 126-85. The Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act also encourages employees to make a complaint or inquiry under certain statutes, including the North Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Act, by prohibiting retaliation from employers. § 95-240 et seq. Teachers, administrators, and all educators are in a unique position to observe and report concerns relating to the health and safety of students and employees, the quality of education students are receiving, the curriculum and whether students' educational needs are being met, the administration of public schools, the handling of public funds, the safety of the school building, and the accurate reporting of information to parents and the public. Educators are likely to witness or learn of such concerning actions during the school day when parents are not present to observe the concerns. Further, students may be too young to understand such concerns or know to report them. Educators reporting concerns not being remedied benefits the well-being of students and their educational environment. Bringing concerns to the administration or the public helps shed
-16light on the issues and effectuate change. If educators did not voice these concerns, the conditions would likely deteriorate to cause further harm to students, such as a student continuing to not receive proper services under his Individualized Educational Program or a school building with a physical safety risk to students further deteriorating. B. Local boards of education should ensure a fair decision-making process is provided to employees especially where they have made whistleblower reports. Educators will be deterred from bringing forth important concerns if they fear retaliation against them, including a nonrenewal of their contract. Local boards can help ease such fears by providing due process and a fair decisionmaking process to employees who have acted as whistleblowers. By providing a fair process at the board level, boards can ensure that they are fairly considering all the evidence and not acting based on an arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, personal, or political reason. Without such a process to determine whether a board's action was improperly based on the whistleblower action, local boards may face lengthy and expensive litigation by the aggrieved whistleblowers. In discussing her whistleblower action of talking with a report about air quality, Ms. Tobe-Williams noted her belief that Isitudents and staff deserve a clean and healthy learning environment, all stakeholders deserve accurate information and employees should feel comfortable raising workplace hazard
complaints without without fear of retaliation." (R pp 388-89). Despite her having brought important legitimate concerns to light, the Board did not provide Ms. TobeWilliams even a minimally fair process to ensure its actions were not based on her whistleblowing.
CONCLUSION For the above reasons, amicus respectfully requests that this Court affirm the superior court's decision. Respectfully submitted this \a4Nday of September, 2013. NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATORS
Ann McColl, General Counsel N.C. Bar No. 18304 [email protected]
abA/Lcklik Carrie Bumgardner, Staff Attorney N.C. Bar No. 40117 [email protected]
North Carolina Association of Educators P.O. Box 27347 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 755-5553 Attorneys for Amicus North Carolina Association of Educators
-18CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, I certify that the attached brief was prepared in proportionally spaced Times New Roman type in 14-point font, and that the brief, excluding the cover, index, table of authorities, certificate of service, and certificate of compliance, contains less than 3.750 words, as reported by the word processing software used to prepare it. This the
ilay of September, 2013.
Carrie Bumgardner, Staf Attorney N.C. Bar No. 40117 North Carolina Association of Educators P.O. Box 27347 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 755-5586 [email protected]
-19CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that she served a copy of the foregoing on all counsel and parties of record by depositing a copy, contained in a first-class envelope, postage pre-paid, into a depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service, addressed as follows: Mary-Ann Leon The Leon Law Firm, P.C. P.O. Box 20338 Greenville, NC 27858 Attorney for Petitioner-Appellee
J. Michael McGuinness The McGuinness Law Firm P.O. Box 952 Elizabethtown, NC 28377 Attorney for Petitioner-Appellee
Wayne A. Bullard Hogue Hill, L.L.P. P.O. Box 2178 Wilmington, NC 28402 Attorney for Respondent-Appellant
Deborah R. Stagner Tharrington Smith, L.L.P. P.O. Box 1151 Raleigh, NC 27602 Attorney for Respondent-Appellant
Allison B. Schafer Christine T. Scheef North Carolina School Boards Association P.O. Box 97877 Raleigh, NC 27624 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae North Carolina School Boards Association This the ,-\\ a.ay of September, 2013.
.4s Carrie Bumgardner, S aff Attorney N.C. Bar No. 40117 North Carolina Association of Educators P.O. Box 27347 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 755-5586 [email protected]
No. COA 13-679