TJCA's Published Board Meeting Rules Promise Public Comment, Even as Leadership Considers Eliminating It

What happened: Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy continues to publish a document titled TJCA Board Meeting Handout, which tells members of the public how they may participate in the Academy's Board of Directors meetings. The document, identified on TJCA's website by a filename referencing 2013, states that any individual attending a Board meeting is invited to speak during the public-comment portion of the agenda. It describes a straightforward process: prospective speakers sign in before the meeting begins, receive three minutes to address the Board unless the chair specifies otherwise, and have their comments included in the official meeting minutes. The document also states that public comment occurs near the beginning of every Board meeting.

As of October 2026, TJCA continues to make this handout available through its official website under Board of Directors → Bylaws and Policies, alongside the Academy's bylaws. That public commitment is particularly significant in light of two subsequent developments. In December 2018, following complaints about Board governance and the handling of grievances, the North Carolina Office of Charter Schools required TJCA's Board to undergo governance training and recommended greater transparency concerning how stakeholders could bring complaints before the Board.

Then, on October 6, 2026, TJCA's longtime attorney, David Hostetler, told Board members during another governance training session that they were not legally required to provide public comment. He encouraged them to reconsider whether public comment was productive, whether it should occur at every meeting, and whether alternative methods might better serve the Board. The subsequent discussion explored additional restrictions, including advance review of proposed remarks, limits on repetitive comments, and replacing opportunities to speak with written submissions. The resulting contrast is significant: TJCA still publicly invites every attendee to speak at its Board meetings while its leadership discusses whether that opportunity should continue to exist in its present form.

What was established:

TJCA's published handout promises public participation

The one-page document begins by welcoming visitors to Board meetings and explaining that the Board must conduct its business efficiently and professionally. It advises attendees that Board members generally will not engage in discussion with the audience while conducting official business. Nevertheless, the handout states: "However, the board welcomes public input" It goes on to invite individuals attending Board meetings to participate in the public-comment portion of the agenda, which it says occurs near the beginning of every meeting. The handout establishes several specific expectations:

• Opportunity to speak: Any individual attending the meeting is invited to provide public comment.

• Sign-in procedure: Speakers need only sign in before the meeting is called to order.

• Speaking time: Each speaker is normally allowed three minutes, subject to the chair's discretion.

• No transfer of time: Speakers may not give their unused minutes to others.

• Official record: The handout promises that public comments will be included in the meeting minutes.

The document also warns against discussing private personnel matters or making defamatory accusations during public meetings. These provisions establish what TJCA has communicated to prospective attendees about the opportunity to address its governing Board. The handout does not merely advise visitors how to behave if public comment happens to be permitted. It affirmatively represents public comment as a recurring part of the Board's regular meeting process. Although the document's filename references 2013, the copy currently posted does not establish its precise adoption date or demonstrate that the Board formally enacted it as a binding policy. Its continued publication nevertheless matters because it remains part of the instructions TJCA itself provides to the public.

Public comment was part of Board practice before the 2018 complaints

Historical Board records show that public comment was not simply a hypothetical procedure.

For example, the minutes of TJCA's March 7, 2017, Board meeting contain a separate public-comment section recording that a member of the public, identified as Clay Flower, addressed the Board. The minutes do not summarize the speaker's remarks, but they establish that the Board was conducting a public-comment period and recording public participation. This provides independent evidence that the practice described in the handout had been implemented in actual Board proceedings. The minutes also raise a useful question about the scope of TJCA's promise to include public comments in its official records. A statement that someone addressed the Board documents participation, but provides little information about what the speaker actually said. The distinction between recording that a person spoke and preserving the substance of their concerns matters when Board minutes become the historical record of community participation.

October–December 2018: State officials investigate governance complaints

In October 2018, TJCA parent Ingeborg Collins filed complaints with the North Carolina Office of Charter Schools concerning the Academy's governance practices. Among the concerns raised was the absence of an adequate procedure for bringing grievances directly against the Board of Directors. The complaints also questioned meeting notices, Board decision-making, compliance with bylaws, and the handling of public records requests. On November 16, the Office of Charter Schools formally requested responses and supporting documentation from TJCA. The Academy, through attorney David Hostetler, responded that it maintained a grievance policy and a standing Grievance Committee.

However, the existence of an administrative grievance process does not necessarily provide a meaningful avenue for complaints about the Board itself. That distinction was central to Collins's concerns. On December 27, 2018, the Office of Charter Schools issued its findings and required corrective action. State officials directed TJCA's Board to complete governance training by July 31, 2019, required proper state approval of future bylaw amendments, and instructed the Board to review recommendations for improving its governance practices. Among those recommendations was greater transparency about how the public could bring grievances involving the Board.

The Office of Charter Schools specifically recommended that TJCA consider adding information to its website explaining its policies for hearing Board-level grievances, including public-comment procedures where applicable. This was a recommendation to clarify and publicize accountability procedures, not a formal directive requiring TJCA to establish a public-comment period. But it was part of a broader state intervention arising from complaints about the accessibility and operation of the Academy's governing Board. The historical significance is clear: public participation and the ability to raise concerns directly with TJCA's Board were already matters of documented regulatory scrutiny in 2018.

TJCA's 2025 bylaws identify community communication as a Board responsibility

The Academy's bylaws, dated June 3, 2025, provide additional context. Article IV identifies the responsibilities of the Board of Directors. Among them is a duty: "To facilitate communication with the community" Article V requires Board meetings to comply with North Carolina's Open Meetings Law and Public Records Act. These provisions do not themselves establish a specific three-minute public-comment entitlement at every meeting. Nevertheless, they place communication with the community among the Board's stated responsibilities. The published public-comment handout offers one concrete way the Academy has represented that responsibility to the public: allowing community members to address the Board directly during its regular proceedings.

October 6, 2026: Hostetler questions whether public comment should continue

On October 6, 2026, TJCA conducted a Board governance training session led by attorney David Hostetler. The session addressed charter school law, governance responsibilities, public records, open meetings, and Board procedures. At approximately 1:04:40 in the training recording, Hostetler turned to public comment. He acknowledged that TJCA had maintained a public-comment period for as long as he could remember. He then encouraged reconsideration of the practice, warning that public-comment sessions could become difficult to control. Hostetler stated: "You don't have to provide for public comment." He suggested that Board members consider whether a public-comment period should occur at every regular meeting, only periodically, or through another avenue. He also asked whether public comment constituted a productive use of Board time. Those statements are noteworthy because TJCA's publicly posted handout describes public comment as part of every meeting and invites every attendee to participate. The attorney's recommendation introduced the possibility of removing or substantially reducing a longstanding avenue of direct public participation.

Board members discuss restricting repeated public criticism

The training later presented a hypothetical involving a member of the public who repeatedly criticized school administration during Board meetings. The discussion distinguished between genuinely disruptive conduct and remarks that Board members might simply find uncomfortable.

Hostetler acknowledged that First Amendment considerations could limit how public criticism was restricted. He also indicated that reasonable time limits and meeting procedures could be imposed. During this meeting, Executive Director Jodi Issacs questioned how the Academy might respond to individuals who repeatedly returned to make substantially the same complaints.

The discussion then turned to advance approval of remarks.

During that same meeting, board chair Doug Grondahl suggested a possible system requiring speakers to submit their intended comments beforehand, allowing school officials to review the submissions and determine whether the remarks should be permitted. Grondahl acknowledged that such an arrangement would require additional administrative review and stated that TJCA had not decided to implement it. Hostetler subsequently suggested that reasonable time limits might allow priority for speakers who had not previously addressed the Board, while those raising repeated concerns could be directed toward written submissions. The implications for public accountability are significant. Repeated complaints are not necessarily evidence that public participation has become unproductive. They may also indicate that a community member believes an unresolved problem remains unaddressed.

A procedure that deprioritizes speakers because they have raised the same concerns previously could therefore have a particularly strong effect on parents or community members pursuing continuing grievances. The question is not simply whether the Board may maintain an orderly meeting. It is how the Board distinguishes between genuinely disruptive conduct and sustained criticism that administrators would prefer not to hear again.

Written submissions proposed as an alternative to speaking

Hostetler was asked during the board training about receiving public comments asynchronously rather than through conventional in-person presentations. Hostetler described arrangements used by other clients in which written submissions could be subject to page limits, preserved in the official record, and accepted without any commitment to respond. He characterized this as one of several options available to the Board.

Written comments can provide an additional means for individuals to communicate with a governing body, particularly when transportation, employment, disability, or caregiving obligations make in-person attendance difficult. But replacing live public comment with written submissions would also change the nature of public participation. A written statement submitted privately to administrators does not provide the same opportunity for a parent or community member to address the full Board in public, on the record, before other attendees. Similarly, advance screening of proposed remarks could introduce new discretion over who speaks and what subjects may be raised. Those are meaningful changes from the approach described in TJCA's published handout, under which a prospective speaker need only sign in before the meeting begins.

The distinction between legal minimums and public commitments

North Carolina's Open Meetings Law generally establishes a right to attend public meetings, not an unrestricted right to address the governing body during every meeting. Traditional local boards of education are subject to an additional public-comment requirement under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-51. Charter school governing boards operate under a different statutory framework. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-218.25 expressly subjects them to the Open Meetings Law, but does not independently impose the same monthly public-comment requirement applicable to local boards of education.

This helps explain Hostetler's position that TJCA could reconsider its public-comment procedures.

But whether the state requires a particular practice is only part of the issue. TJCA has independently published instructions promising that Board meeting attendees may address their representatives. Its bylaws also identify communication with the community as a responsibility of the Board. And its history includes an Office of Charter Schools intervention that specifically recommended greater transparency concerning Board-level grievances and public participation procedures. The absence of a general statutory requirement does not erase the significance of a commitment the Academy has chosen to make publicly. If TJCA wishes to replace or substantially restrict its existing public-comment procedures, the relevant questions include what the Board has formally adopted, how any change is authorized, how it will be communicated, and whether the new system will preserve meaningful opportunities for the community to raise concerns.

Why this matters

The October 2026 discussion is especially notable when viewed against TJCA's longer history of governance disputes. In 2018, state officials responded to complaints that parents lacked adequate avenues for addressing grievances involving the Board itself. The Office of Charter Schools required corrective governance measures and recommended greater public clarity about how Board-level complaints should be heard. Eight years later, the Academy's attorney encouraged the Board to consider whether allowing members of the public to speak at meetings was worth continuing. The Board then discussed procedures that could restrict repeated speakers, require advance review of remarks, or replace oral comments with written submissions.

These discussions occurred while TJCA continued to publicly post a document welcoming every attendee to speak during its Board meetings. The central question is whether TJCA intends to preserve public participation as an ordinary feature of accountable governance—or reduce it to whatever degree of access the Board believes it is legally required to provide.

Original evidence:

• TJCA Board Meeting Handout — Public Comments 2013 (PDF). One-page document inviting all meeting attendees to speak, specifying advance sign-in, a normal three-minute limit, and inclusion in official minutes. The PDF remains linked on TJCA's website in October 2026.

• TJCA Board of Directors — Bylaws and Policies. The school's official webpage displaying the public-comment handout alongside its bylaws.

• 20170317BoardMinutes.pdf, March 7, 2017 Board minutes. Documents an actual public-comment period and an attendee addressing the Board.

• 11:16 Complaint to the Office of Charter Schools.pdf, 2018 complaint and governance correspondence, pp. 4–5 and 41–44. Includes Ingeborg Collins's governance complaints and the December 27, 2018 Office of Charter Schools findings, corrective-action requirements, and recommendations concerning Board-level grievances and public-comment procedures.

• TJCA Bylaws — June 3, 2025 (PDF). Article IV identifies facilitating communication with the community as a Board responsibility; Article V addresses compliance with public meeting requirements.

• Charter School Board Legal Training Transcript.docx, October 6, 2026, approximately 1:04:40–1:12:55. Records Hostetler's statements concerning the optional nature of public comment, discussions of repeated criticism and advance approval, and consideration of written submissions.

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-218.25. Charter school obligations under the Open Meetings Law.

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-51. Public-comment requirements applicable to local boards of education.

Subsequent developments: As of October 19, 2026, the Academy continues to host its public-comment handout under its official Board policies webpage. The October 6 governance training documented consideration of changing public-comment procedures, including possible restrictions and alternative submission methods. During that training, a participant explicitly stated that TJCA had not decided to implement a system requiring advance approval of public remarks. No subsequent Board vote abolishing the public-comment period has been established through the materials reviewed for this entry. The public handout therefore remains an important reference point for documenting any changes in the Academy's practices. Future research should compare the handout with dated meeting agendas, minutes, policy revisions, recordings, and firsthand accounts of attendance. Particular attention should be paid to whether public-comment periods remain available at regular Board meetings, whether advance sign-in or content approval requirements change, whether repeat speakers are restricted, and whether the substance of public remarks is preserved in meeting records. Any formal changes to the published handout or the Academy's meeting procedures should also be documented, including the dates on which revised instructions first appear. TJCATruth.com welcomes copies of historical and current public-comment policies, meeting agendas, Board resolutions, recordings, correspondence, and other documentation concerning changes to public participation at TJCA.

Report from the community: TJCA's published handout provides a direct institutional statement about how members of the public are supposed to participate in Board meetings. The March 2017 minutes independently establish that a member of the public addressed the Board during a designated public-comment period. The 2018 Office of Charter Schools records preserve a firsthand parent complaint concerning the difficulty of bringing grievances involving the Board itself, together with the state's subsequent review and recommendations. The October 2026 training transcript records discussions among school leadership and legal counsel concerning the future of public comment, including potential restrictions and alternative procedures. These materials illustrate an ongoing tension between the Academy's formal invitation to community participation and the practical authority exercised by Board leadership over that participation.

TJCATruth.com welcomes firsthand accounts from parents, former students, teachers, staff, and community members who have attended Board meetings, attempted to address the Board, or experienced restrictions on what they were permitted to say. Of particular interest are occasions when speakers were prevented from commenting, asked to obtain prior approval, restricted because of earlier remarks, or informed that certain subjects could not be raised. We also welcome accounts of how the Board handled recurring grievances and whether commenters saw their concerns accurately reflected in official minutes. Individuals with relevant firsthand experiences are encouraged to contact TJCATruth.com. Requests for anonymity will be respected, and identifying information will not be published without the contributor's explicit consent. All submissions will be handled with discretion and confidentiality.