It's 505 and welcome in to a Friday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT, I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you. It was a busy day in the North Carolina General Assembly yesterday as the House Oversight Committee met and once again. Brought forth the executives and leadership within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District. That sounds vaguely familiar to you.
It was about four or five months ago that the superintendent in Rodney Trice and other officials, including the chairman of the school board, were hauled in front of said committee over concerns over non-compliance with Senate Bill 49. That's the parents' Bill of Rights, which passed through the North Carolina General Assembly back three years ago. And so, with this hearing, the last hearing about four or five months ago was very contentious between lawmakers and the Chapel Hill administration. They felt that the Chapel Hill Carborough City School District was still not complying with law, so they were invited once again. Here was the opening from the chairman of the committee in Brendan Jones, the Republican from Columbus County.
I want to start by saying something very plainly. Nobody wanted this committee back here today with you. We sat right here four months ago. and ask you to do one simple thing, and that was to follow the law. Follow Senate Bill 49.
Follow the Parents' Bill of Rights. Comply fully. Honestly, Without games, it's all we asked. You had four months. Instead, the evidence keeps piling up.
Week after week, production after production. Parent after parent.
So I'm going to be blunt about why we're here today. You made us do this. We do not want a second hearing. You forced it. You force it by your continual refusal to follow the law.
at the expense of innocent children. On December 10th, you sat at this table. You were placed under oath. And you swore to this committee that your district was in full compliance. You told us you've been in compliance.
And I'm quoting you since 23. We took you at your word. But we went back. We've read the record. We read your documents.
We read your district's own emails. And I can tell you today. The evidence does not support what you told us. Not even close. Today Piece by piece.
You're going to answer for what you said then. and for what the record actually shows. It was a lengthy committee meeting in Raleigh running about two and a half hours of back and forth with lawmakers, with the superintendent, Dr. Rodney Trice, of the Chapel Hill-Carborough City School District, and the head of the media technician, a media technician, a professional within the school district. As you just heard there from Representative Brendan Jones, Senate Bill, or House Bill 49, the Parents Bill of Rights, which increased transparency in curriculum and what exactly was going on in classrooms across the state of North Carolina.
A lot of this deals with material within the books, within the libraries, throughout the school district. Representative Jones dug into that early into the hearing. We're going to start with the butts. Because this is where your district made its bed. At our last hearing in this very room, This committee held up materials Your own equity office had put in front of parents and students of Chapel Hill-Carlborough.
For the four, five, six-year-olds. We asked you plainly whether those materials belonged in front of little kids. And you under oath sitting in that chair. told this committee Those were just third-party links. In fact, your district really didn't approve them.
Like you couldn't speak to everything that happens on the website. You tried to make this committee feel unreasonable for asking those questions. You tried to make the parents watching feel foolish. The implication you wanted the public to walk away with was crystal clear. These books really aren't ours.
They're not in our schools. They're just links. Dr. Trice, that was gaslighting. And either you knew it when you said it.
Or you are so far removed from your own district that you cannot tell the committee what's sitting in the shelves of your own schools. Because after December 10th, Our committee staff Did what you're Staff apparently wouldn't do. We went, we looked. We pulled your district's library inventories. the records your district maintains and counted.
And what we found is that 155 copies of 63 unique titles on sexuality, gender identity, and sexual activity are sitting on your shelves right now. Today. As we speak. Not on a third-party website. Not on somebody else's server.
Inside your buildings. And the libraries were your kindergartners. First graders, second graders go for story time. available to any child in the Chapel Hill Carlborough. School system.
Ready available for them to check out.
So when you came to this room in December, What we were showing you was a third-party link. It was not a misunderstanding. That was a smokescreen. A diversion. designed to throw this committee off the scent.
To pat worried parents on the head, So let everyone walk away feeling like the whole concern had just been a big misunderstanding and should be forgotten. You wanted the problem to disappear. For a minute, you probably thought it had. We're going to go through these books today. Not because I want to.
Not because anybody in this committee enjoys it. But because the children of Chapel Hill Carlborough deserve somebody to actually read what is put in your district.
Some strong words there from Representative Brendan Jones, the Republican out of Columbus County, leading the committee hearing with leadership from the Chapel Hill-Carlborough City School District in Raleigh on Thursday. We'll hear next from Representative Grant Campbell asking what he believed was a pretty simple question. Will, do you believe it is appropriate to have sexual content within libraries within the district? Here's the back and forth. Could we just agree today?
In this committee, we're under oath. That materials that talk about sexuality, describing sexual acts, illustrating sexual acts. Shouldn't be in elementary school libraries. And can we just agree on that and just say we're not going to do that going forward? I'm not necessarily agreeing with that.
What I'm saying is. That we trust the professionalism of our school librarians. That's the superintendent you're hearing there, Dr. Rodney Trice of the Chapel Hill Carborough City School District. Many of the lawmakers at the hearing asked a similar question to that and got that same answer over and over again for more than two hours during the committee meeting yesterday in Raleigh.
We'll now hear from Representative Carla Cunningham, the Democrat from Mecklenburg County. She lost her primary election back in March of earlier this year, just back a couple of months ago. She dug into the issue a little bit further with district leadership. I wish we wasn't having to talk about Sexual identity, pronouns. and name changes.
But it's here. But I would beg to say the difference. If we looked at children, and allowed the parents to parent They are responsible for parenting their children. And we have taken so much of that away from them that we're having issues with children's social media, sexual identity. We are having so many issues with our children and the parents being able to parent that the children.
are not learning, they're not even being disciplined. They're not achieving. And I'm lastly say this. Federal does dictate law. But the state also supersedes some of the federal statute.
It comes to the state to make that determination. 10 million people in the state of North Carolina or more. determine the elected officials that come to this body. and established the law.
So we won't change in what laws are established. It's up to the people. It's up to the parents to go to the polls and make those decisions about the elected officials. Once we're here and we determine the statute, That's what it is. You must follow the law.
It's no way around it. If the statute passes, And it's written into the books. You must follow the law. It's no way around it. It's not about your emotions.
It's not about what people think. Is right or wrong. They made those decisions when they elected their body, elected the people in the body to make those difficult decisions for the entire. citizens of the state of North Carolina.
So if you want to change that. You got to do your groundwork, but right now the statue is there. And you must follow the law. That's Representative Carla Cunningham laying out the process in which legislation is passed here in North Carolina as the Chapel Hill-Carborough City School District, at least in the opinion of the North Carolina General Assembly, remains not in compliance with Senate Bill 49, the parents' Bill of Right. It was passed by the General Assembly a couple of years ago, increases transparency, calls out questionable content within school districts across the state, and allows for things like book reviews and challenges if parents believe that there is inappropriate content in the classroom.
As you just heard there from Representative Cunningham, whether you like the legislation or not, think it's appropriate or not, it is currently on the books here in North Carolina. And while it is on the books, it does need to be followed by all school districts across the state. I've got a couple more clips from this very lengthy, very fiery committee hearing in Raleigh yesterday. Big surprises could be waiting. In cash avalanche casino slot, every spin brings the chance for exciting rewards.
Collect sweepstakes coins, join spin challenges, and explore colorful themes. With frequent updates and smooth gameplay, the fun keeps going. Download Cash Avalanche Casino slot on the App Store and claim your bonus. It's 5:21. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM, WBT.
We are continuing with what was a busy day in the North Carolina General Assembly yesterday as the Superintendent, Dr. Rodney Trice, of the Chapel Hill Carborough City School District was once again hauled in front of the North Carolina General Assembly's House Oversight Committee and questioned by state lawmakers over compliance by the school district with Senate Bill 49, the Parents' Bill of Rights, which was passed by the General Assembly back just a couple of years ago. You've heard some of the back and forth exchange between Trice and lawmakers, comments about inappropriate content within libraries. A pretty blatant, simple question there from Representative Campbell: Do you believe it is appropriate to have a sexual identity or a Content that depicts sexual activity within the school district, within the library, not getting a clear answer there from the leadership within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School District.
Next up, we'll hear from Representative Jake Johnson, who feels that the leadership there is intending to break the law and to not follow Senate Bill 49. And this is just my opinion. As one legislator, I think there has been a willful intent. to break The law. In Senate Bill 49.
I think there has been a willful intent. That is my opinion. What I think is crystal clear and should be crystal clear to everybody is there's a lot of loopholes left in this guidance. And not just the one I read, ones we've been hearing about all day. That there is a willful intent.
to subvert the intent of the law. And I'm drawing a distinction between those. Um I think that it has been willfully broken. But I think what is clear Is there has been a willful effort to subvert the intent of Senate Bill 49. And I hope going forward, because hopefully sooner rather than later, we are going to be asked to vote on a budget.
And it is really hard for me to vote. to fund something that I feel is willfully breaking the law.
So, I hope changes are made going forward. That's Representative Jake Johnson. He is the Republican out of Henderson, McDowell, Polka, and Rutherford counties. That is just to the south of the Asheville area here in North Carolina.
Next up, we'll hear from Representative Mike Schetzel. He is the Republican out of Northern Wake County. A lot of the committee meeting was a back and forth between lawmakers and leadership within the Chapel Hill-Carborough City School District over whether materials in the library are part of the academics of the school district or whether it is supplemental material. It was kind of a thread that ran through the entirety of the committee meeting, whether that's just additional material that students can check out, or does that actually fall into being a part of the curriculum? Here was Representative Schietzel digging in further on that issue.
Why do we have books that serve student interests rather than the curriculum in the library? Because we promote to our as part as a school district, we promote. Literacy and the love of reading. And we know that when students have a literacy-rich environment, they become better readers.
So, literacy is part of the curriculum? Certainly, literacy is part of the curriculum.
So, if we're serving students' literacy by serving student interests, then aren't we supplementing the curriculum with these books? And wouldn't that fit squarely within the definition that we have right here in the statute that has been read over and over and over in today's hearing?
Well, I think that's a bit circular.
So, I think your interpreter, obviously, this is my time right now.
Okay, but you asked me a question. There are some books in our library. Give the gentleman time to do that question. I'm going to take my time, Dr. Trice.
I appreciate your answer. No, because you haven't answered the questions all day. And so, the problem here is that we've asked you questions about the application of the law and a very fair and straightforward application of the law. And you two gentlemen have come in and tried to split hairs about how that law is supposed to apply by trying to distinguish between books that serve student interests and books that serve the curriculum. But as you just stated, all of these books are here to serve literacy.
All of these books are to encourage academic interest, and that itself is part of the curriculum.
So, when we start going down this spiral, it becomes very difficult to make this distinction. These books in the libraries all supplement learning, they all supplement the curriculum, and that is the only in the way that we can read the law with any sort of integrity.
So there's no question here. I just want to point out that this whole distinction that we're trying to make is completely false. You can't do that. You can't make that distinction between materials that are intended to serve student interests and materials that serve the curriculum. And that's probably one of the reasons that you don't make that distinction.
And I don't see why you expect the law to make that distinction, too. That is silly on its face. That's Representative Mike Schietzel in a heated exchange with the superintendent of the Chapel Hill-Carborough City School District is as if there is a difference, and that was the point of the question there. Is there a difference between certain materials that are in the library? Is it part of curriculum or is it for a greater student interest?
Is the words there that Representative Mike Schetzel used? And how exactly do you differentiate and draw that line? The committee hearing wrapped up with the closing comments from Representative Brendan Jones, who announced that he was filing new legislation to hold school districts accountable that are continued to not be in compliance with state law. This committee's responsibility is not to reinterpret the law. is to see that it's followed.
Because this is not abstract. This is about children, what children are exposed to, and whether parents are being informed and respected. That's the baseline. It's not optional. And let me be equally clear about the next step.
Compliance with state law is not voluntary, and going forward, it will not be without consequences. Due to your testimony today and what we feel is the incompetence of what's happening, just now I introduced legislation to ensure that districts that failed to comply with the parents' Bill of Rights face real enforceable consequences, including financial penalties, they will not be able to ignore. And for everyone to remember why we have it today, it will be called the CHCCS Act. The Curriculum Honesty Compliance and Child Safety Act. Because when a district chooses not to follow the law, it should not expect to continue receiving taxpayer dollars without accountability.
Public funds come with public obligations. And if those obligations are ignored, there will be consequences, real consequences. That's how accountability works. That's how trust is restored. That's how we're going to ensure that protections are put in place for children and parents, and not just words on paper, but standards that will be followed.
No parent should have to fight for their rights. No child should be placed in the middle of these fights, and no district. Believe it can ignore the law without consequences. Not long after those comments there from Representative Brendan Jones, he gaveled and closed the committee hearing in Raleigh. This is the second time in the span of less than five months that leadership, including the superintendent of the Chapel Hill Carborough City School District, were hauled in front of this House Oversight Committee, going back and forth with lawmakers as to whether or not they are in compliance with Senate Bill 49.
As you just heard there from Representative Brendan Jones, if a district is now found not in compliance, if this legislation is to move through the North Carolina General Assembly, if they are not in compliance, they face the penalty of losing out and getting state aid and state financial assistance cut from that district. We'll be keeping a close eye on that legislation during the legislative short session as lawmakers will be back in Raleigh coming up next Tuesday. We'll continue to keep an eye on those details right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. WBT's News and Bruises back for 2026. Join the WBT Air team on Tuesday, May the 12th at Heist Brewery and Barrel Arts for a night of fun conversation about everything taking place, not only here across North Carolina and the nation, but across the globe.
We'll look forward to that conversation as WBT's News and Bruise is back Tuesday, May the 12th at Heist Brewery and Barrel Arts. Visit wbt.com this morning for tickets and event details. It's now 5:38 on the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. Right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour, we brought you information on a major ruling out of the North Carolina Supreme Court dealing with a 30-plus-year-old legal challenge known as Leandro that dealt with education funding filed all the way back in the early 1990s. The report back just a couple of weeks ago showed that the state Supreme Court was in fact tossing the lawsuit and it would not continue to move forward.
We do have some movement on that this morning. The case we thought was dead to walks through those details. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, it's been a long time coming, 32 years since this case was originally filed. The state Supreme Court ruled on it back a ruling on it back just a couple of weeks ago.
It looks like somebody's maybe trying to resurrect this case. What's the latest that you're tracking? Yeah. That's right. We don't exactly know what the basis for this is going to be, but the school board plaintiffs in the Leandro case, these are five school boards in what were low-wealth counties when they originally filed this suit, are going to ask.
the North Carolina Supreme Court to rehear the case. Remember, the case was heard in February of 2024, and then April of this year, we finally got a ruling. The ruling shut down Leandro. It basically said everything that had happened in this case since 2017 was void. It also basically called for the case to be shut down with nothing else to be resolved at the trial court level.
What we know from a filing in the trial court is that these school board plaintiffs are going to ask for a rehearing. They didn't discuss what the basis of that would be or why they're asking for the rehearing. But what they have asked the trial court to do is place a stay on executing. The mandate or judgment from the Supreme Court.
So basically, when the Supreme Court shut down the case. It goes back to the trial court. The trial court says, okay, the Supreme Court told me to shut down the case, so we shut it down. And what the plaintiffs are asking for is the trial court to wait. While this rehearing request takes place.
And if the rehearing is denied, then the trial court could go back and shut down the case. But if the Supreme Court decides to take the case again, then this 32-year-old legal saga that we thought was finally over. would not be over and we would actually see more happen in this case. Mitch, hopefully for those that have listened to us for any extended period of time, I've tried to do a good job. You've done a great job walking through the different rungs, the different ladders that is the judicial system, not only here in North Carolina, but also at the federal level as well.
And so, the kind of the way that it goes is when you get something to the Supreme Court, whether it's state or federal, whatever they rule is it. I mean, there's not really any room to move upward. Is this rehearing kind of equivalent to an appeal that you would ask for in a lower trial? It is to some extent an appeal. And remember that one of the reasons that the ruling that came out in April of this year did come out was because after the Supreme Court ruled on Leandro the last time in November of 2022, state legislative leaders asked for a rehearing.
So this is not the first time that there has been a request for a rehearing. There was a ruling in November of 2022 from the then Democratic majority state Supreme Court that said that not only could a court order additional funding for education in North Carolina, but the court could also order state executive branch officials to move the money without the General Assembly having any input. That ruling came out just a handful of days before a state election that flipped. Supreme Court's majority from the Democrats' favor 4-3 to Republicans' favor 5-2. And after that change, legislative leaders asked for a rehearing, and the Supreme Court granted the rehearing and then came out with this new ruling basically essentially three years after that initial request that shut down the case.
So we don't know what the basis for the rehearing is going to be. We also don't know if it's going to be successful. Remember that this ruling that came down in April was split. It was 4-3. Four Republicans on one side, one Republican and two Democrats on the other.
We don't know what the basis of the request for the rehearing will be, but if it's enough to entice members of the Supreme Court to take it up again, Leandro wouldn't necessarily be dead.
Now, if the court stays where it is with the 4-3 split, then it's likely that the case will end at some point. Point in the not-too-distant future. But that remains to be seen. Remember, one of the other key factors to keep in mind was this decision, the lead opinion in this case had only three votes.
So only three of the seven votes went entirely for what was sometimes characterized as the majority opinion, but was really only the lead opinion. The decision, the 4-3 decision, had the three people who supported the lead opinion and then Justice Phil Berger Jr., who supported the decision, but wouldn't sign on to that lead opinion because he didn't think it went far enough to say that the case should be shut down.
So it'll be interesting to see if that plays into the request for having a rehearing saying, look, only three of your justices signed on to what is considered the lead opinion. That's not a majority. That means you ought to come back and take another look at this. I'm not sure if that's going to be part of the argument, but it certainly could be. Mitch, as you just mentioned, we don't exactly know the rationale behind this request for a rehearing.
Is that something that will become public as this, I guess, now plays out in the trial court level? And kind of how does that process work?
Well, it certainly will play out, and it'll play out at the Supreme Court level because there will be a petition for a rehearing that will be filed with the Supreme Court, and that should happen relatively shortly. We'll hear what the argument is from these school board plaintiffs about why the case should be reheard. At the trial court level, the only thing that had to happen, and that's what did happen, is this court filing that asked the judge to stay any execution of what the Supreme Court asked him to do, saying, Look, we're going to file this petition for rehearing. While that's in the process, please don't do anything that would end the case prematurely.
So, that's really all they needed to say. They cited some of the rules involved, why the trial court could do this, what the basis was in terms of the rules for asking for the rehearing, but they didn't offer any of the meat about why the rehearing is going to be requested. That's going to be something that we'll see in a public filing at the state. Supreme Court, my guess is in the not too distant future. I think, Mitch, you already alluded to this, but I want to make sure I understand it correctly.
Is it just a simple majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court that would have to be in favor of this rehearing for that to take place, or does it require some level of a supermajority? How does that play out? I actually don't know the rule on that completely, Nick, but my guess is a simple majority.
So certainly, you're likely going to get two votes. For a rehearing from the Democratic justices, who basically excoriated the majority for what it did. The third no vote on the decision came from Justice Richard Dietz, who basically did not go along with what the Democrats said in terms of criticizing the majority. Richard Dietz also thought that this case should be resolved relatively quickly, but he would not have shut it down when the majority did. He wanted it to play out in another way.
So potentially Richard Dietz would be a third vote to rehear, but it's hard to imagine that any of the other four votes, the four votes that called for vacating everything that happened since 2017 and shutting the case down, it's hard to imagine any one of them supporting a rehearing. But I think you would need at least one of their votes for this to happen. I don't think that there is a supermajority requirement. Remember when the rehearing took place on the In this case, the first time when that was decided, the request was made in 2023, and then eventually oral arguments took place in 2024. That was supported by all five Republicans.
So if there was some sort of supermajority requirement, they probably met it with the 5-2 vote. But I think it would be a simple majority to seek a rehearing in this case. We'll, of course, keep an eye on those details as it relates to the actual request being made to the North Carolina Supreme Court, see what some of those arguments are. Mitch, this is an interesting time here in North Carolina. A week from today, teachers from across the state of North Carolina will be making their way to Raleigh, a major protest by the North Carolina Association of Educators taking place outside of the General Assembly.
Education, both on the legal front and the public policy front, remains a very hot topic of conversation here across the Tar Heels State. Yeah, that's definitely true. And of course, one of the things that the Leandro case has done is helped skew the debate for a number of years. For basically the past decade, we've seen.
Sort of a partisan fight with Democrats saying, fully fund Leandro, fully fund Leandro, even if they don't exactly know what that means and how that would play out. If the Leandro case does, in fact, remain dead, as we thought it was on April 2nd, then there's going to have to be a change in tactics about what to do. And my guess is you're going to eventually see the main players here, the legislators, the governor, state board of education, all kind of get together and say, okay, the Leandro case isn't getting us where we want to go. What are we going to do now that's going to develop a plan that will actually meet this constitutional mandate to provide the opportunity for access to a sound basic education? A lot of different threads there.
We'll be keeping our eye on that protest coming up next week in Raleigh, also keeping our eye on some of the filings within the North Carolina Supreme Court. We really appreciate the information and the insight this morning. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Ah Good morning again. It's 5:53.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. We've got a brand new report this morning out of the UNC system that reveals that North Carolina is not graduating nearly enough students with degrees in critical industries. The report is named the Workforce Alignment Report, and it is a new initiative with plans to be updated every two years. The goal is to understand ties between degrees completed and jobs created in the state. The North Carolina economy is currently booming with the 2025, with the 2025 reported as a record year for job commitments and over $24 billion in capital investment in new expanded companies, according to the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce.
The UNC report reads: It is clear that North Carolina. Has a strong and growing economy that will require a highly skilled workforce for years to come. Despite the upward trend in the economy, there is a lack of recent graduates to fill key roles. Major shortfalls include degrees in engineering, healthcare, science, and education. According to the report, the state is facing a projected shortfall of 5,000 to 10,000 bachelor's degrees needed to fill projected openings in jobs in the future.
With the report saying in part, embedded within North Carolina's Constitution is a charge for our public universities to encourage and promote all useful learnings. Across its 16 universities, the UNC system offers more than 350 academic programs at different degree levels. The workforce is growing faster than the universities can graduate students in some of those most in-demand fields.
However, it is important to note that North Carolina is not alone on this issue. According to a recent report from Georgetown University's Center on Education and Workforce, the United States needs over 5 million additional workers who have some sort of post-secondary education by the year 2032. The United States is also experiencing a shortage of nurses, which is only expected to rise as baby boomers age and the need for health care grows. Much of that problem is linked to universities' struggle to expand capacity in their various nursing programs. Onto the education and engineering workforce.
They don't fall far behind. Teacher shortages are predicted to particularly affect middle and elementary school students. And nationally, jobs for teachers began outpacing hires in 2017. With that gap only getting larger. Those in the engineering fields and those degree programs facing a similar problem as engineers are critical to the success of the economy because they drive infrastructure advancements, technological development, and more.
The report says that there is a lack of engineering graduates in fields that align with labor market needs. Dr. Bob Lubke, the director of the Center for Effective Education at the John Locke Foundation, told the Carolina Journal: Workforce shortages are a norm in many areas, including teaching, engineering, and healthcare. They are tied to real changes in population and our unwillingness to deal with the implications of those changes. Public programs to address these problems are laudable, but they are generally far downstream from the root causes.
If we are looking for long-term solutions, we might do better to engage young people in specific professions or career paths. And discuss the need for cultural changes. You can read more on this report. It's linked up over on our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com. That's going to do it for a Friday morning edition.
WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you Monday morning, 5 to 6, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 WBT. Yeah.
