A proposal to form a district committee focused on workforce recruitment, retention and staff recognition prompted debate and procedural confusion at the Public Schools of Robeson County board meeting on Nov. 18.

Mister Terry (Terry Locklear) brought forward a draft charge for what he described as a talent acquisition and retention committee — language he said was intended to avoid ‘HR’ labeling. He said the committee would monitor workforce health, review recruitment and retention trends, promote employee recognition and recommend systemwide improvements while explicitly avoiding hiring, firing or individual personnel decisions.

The motion to add the item to the agenda initially failed when the chairman reported five votes in favor and noted a higher threshold was needed for that earlier procedural change. The board attorney clarified that the required threshold had been misstated and that reconsideration was possible; a substitute motion offered by Miss Christie Fields (seconded by Mister Henry Brewer) passed with a reported 6–4 vote to add the committee charge to the agenda for future action.

Board members raised concerns during discussion. Miss Melissa Oceans warned the board was “coming dangerously close” to acting as employees or intervening in personnel matters; Doctor Emmanuel and Mister Craig emphasized the need to protect the superintendent’s statutory authority and the grievance/confidentiality processes. Several members asked the board attorney to review existing policies and to tighten the committee’s limitations language before a final vote.

What was decided: the board did not finalize the committee charge at the meeting but approved adding the charge to a future agenda and instructed the attorney to review the draft to ensure it does not conflict with superintendent authority, personnel laws or existing district policies.

Quote: “This committee does not participate in hiring, firing, supervision, or evaluating any employee,” Mister Terry said when presenting the draft charge. Miss Melissa Oceans said she was concerned the board might nevertheless end up monitoring employee issues and recommended the attorney review the proposal.

What’s next: the attorney will review the draft charge and the board will revisit the item at a subsequent meeting with refined language and proposed limits.