With UPDATES 1 & 2: Moore Schools selects SFL&A as architectural firm amid ethics, transparency concerns

The Moore County School Board selected SFL&A as its architectural firm for a new high school on Jan. 12, with new ethics language in the contract. The selection is dependent on the voters approving of SFL&A at the Nov. 2026 bond referendum.

Member David Hensley, who was online during the meeting, said the new ethics protections added to the contract needed review for the public before voting.

One ethics statement centers on nepotism and is an agreement to thoroughly review personnel who may have conflicts of interest.

The other added statement addressed protocols against the firm donating to active political campaigns or to elected officials, which would sway voters to choose their firm at the Nov. 2026 bond referendum.

UPDATE #1: Under Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code, on “qualified” energy-efficient commercial buildings tax breaks, over a million in federal tax breaks may be up for grabs.

The school board did not discuss the tax break.

Under Section 179D, the tax breaks are for property owners and designers of energy-efficient commercial buildings.

The architects will earn 7% to 8% of the $157 million construction cost, or a flat fee of $8.8 million if the voters agree in Nov. 2026.

The present design build calls for 243,000 square feet. When multiplied by $5.81, the tax break comes to $1,411,830.

Read more about the board’s discussion of the design firm here.

When voting on the Nov. 2026 school bond, consider that redistricting plans will not be completed, so voters will be voting in the dark. People who bought their homes because they wanted specific neighborhood schools will lose that property right that includes public services for their address, such as public schools. Read more here.

The Consent Agenda

Hensley voted against the consent agenda because the board had not held interviews for a new school police chief.

He said the decision of the new police chief should be a decision of the new superintendent. He said there were unresolved school police issues, and they needed new people.

Member Pauline Bruno said Chief Gooch was “absolutely wonderful, but I really think this is the new superintendent’s choice.”

Member Kenneth Benway said more interviews needed to be conducted, but it was not important enough to vote against the consent agenda.

Three or four months ago, Interim School Police Chief Gooch made accusations about Hensley’s social media, claiming he berated the school officers and lowered morale.

“He had not seen them…but had heard about them,” Hensley said about the interim chief’s accusation based on hearsay, which is not proper police protocol.

Hensley’s social media posts shared facts about past police behavior and no posts berating school police in general.

When Hensley mentioned Madame Chairperson Robin Calcutt’s new restrictive policy on the consent agenda, she interrupted him and told him to keep his discussion on the topic of the problem.

One member turned around Hensley’s point about the chief not focusing on facts, but on hearsay. The member said the chief’s hearsay about social media posts did not matter, only the effect of social media. The member’s point of view canceled the logic of scientific empirical evidence and replaced it with theory alone.

During the Dec. 8, 2025, policy discussion, Hensley criticized Calcutt’s proposed policy to move all work session topics to the consent agenda, arguing it would reduce transparency and limit public understanding of where members stand on issues. He said the timing was especially concerning ahead of an upcoming election and warned it could silence certain board voices, and it reflected poor leadership. Hensley said that board members often gain new information between meetings, and the proposed process could prevent further discussion and better solutions.

During the Dec. 8 meeting, Bruno expressed concern about losing individual autonomy, noting two members were required to add an item to the consent agenda, while three were needed to remove one. Benway said he did not perceive malicious intent but agreed the policy should be reviewed because it did not align with its intended purpose. Member Steve Johnson, who is on the policy committee, said the policy reflected new trends and stated his intent was to ensure items remained on the consent agenda.

An example of enabling nepotism by promoting and hiring people through a vote on the consent agenda follows. Nepotism is when people in powerful positions favor friends or family members.

Bridget Johnson, the wife of School Board Member Steve Johnson, was hired Dec. 8, 2025, as the Assistant Director of Student Services. The salary scale places her earnings at $100,000+.

The board may discuss personnel matters in closed sessions, but is required to vote in public, and this is conducted through the consent agenda.

Calcutt’s new policy of not discussing the consent agenda or changing it, but only voting on it, limits transparency for the public because the news of the promotion or new hire comes only after the vote.

The public has no input. That is why it is important to research whom you support in elections.

Bruno and Hensley voted against the hiring of the school board’s spouse, while Johnson recused himself and the others approved.

During public comments at the Jan. 12 meeting, Erica Davis asked for transparency about the decision to build a new high school and cost comparisons on renovations. She said moving students around was not acceptable as a form of handling overcrowding. Her complaints included demands on teachers to work at more than one school and the financial strain on the public to support four high schools.

UPDATE #2: The following crucial information was emailed to Sandhills News from Erica Davis. It has been verified through the North Carolina Department of Instruction.

Hello! I appreciate your news covering on the School Board meeting last night- I thought I’d include a copy of my speech to help clarify my point about the teachers- the state funding is based on a per pupil rate- and with a county like ours, the more schools we have, the less this pupil per teacher ratio works out because for example, if we have 30 2nd graders- the state would fund 2 teachers to cover them. However, let’s say that 20 of them are at School A and 10 of them are at school B. That leaves an imbalance, and to meet state classroom requirements, and the county has to take the 2 funded teachers- and supply a 3rd because School A can only have 17 students in a classroom. For high school a similar issue arises when we have split demands for Math 1 teachers- it likely will result in paying for more teachers out of the county’s pocket. Here’s my letter:

Good evening members of the Board,
I was surprised to learn that the Board is committed to building a fourth high school as the primary solution to overcrowding and crumbling facilities at Pinecrest and Union Pines. There have been no dedicated meetings, surveys or presentations for the parents and community and at no point was it made clear that this had become the preferred or final decision. Even more concerning is that this plan is expected to go before voters in November through a bond referendum—without meaningful engagement from the parents and communities most affected. Nor has this been a discussion with those tasked with the funding- the County Commissioners.
While it is relatively straightforward to understand the cost of purchasing land and constructing a new building, it would be helpful to see a detailed, comparative analysis of the long-term financial implications of the different options. I am hoping for clarification on what is included in the modernization and renovation cost estimates. How were these figures developed, and what systems or improvements do they encompass?
I’d like to see us compare the cost of constructing a new high school, plus renovating and modernizing the 2 existing high schools versus only renovating and modernizing two existing high schools, and paying one time set costs of moving students around while those constructions happen
While also considering the long-term operational and maintenance costs (utilities, heating and cooling, water, staffing, transportation, etc.) of operating four high schools versus three?
I also have questions regarding the scope of the proposed bond referendum- does it include the costs of modernizing the existing schools? If the decision to build a fourth high school has already been made without community input, I respectfully ask that this be communicated clearly along with a detailed plan demonstrating how existing high schools will not be left behind. If the district expects the community to support a bond referendum, it is essential that we are aligned, informed, and working together.
While overcrowding is real, simply moving students does not fix current facility or operating expense issues. Parents are paying out of pocket for athletic uniforms and equipment because we are told operating budgets are stretched so thin. While I fully support parent involvement and community fundraising for “above and beyond” opportunities, we should not operate under the assumption that families must fund the basic necessities required to operate a school and our programs.
I’m also deeply concerned about staffing. The district currently has 66 open positions that we can’t find candidates to hire. A fourth high school doesn’t just mean a few more teachers—it means an entirely new staff: administrators, counselors, cafeteria workers, custodians, bus drivers, coaches, and specialized teachers for AP, Honors, CTE, arts, and electives. In a county as geographically large as ours, teachers cannot simply be “split” between schools, even if enrollment numbers suggest otherwise. This is not always covered in the state funding calculations, and leaves us with a shortage of salary funds.
For overcrowding numbers- have we considered the high number of juniors and seniors are off campus for Sandhills Community College dual enrollment classes, and what is the data to show what the actual core capacity needs are at the high schools? Also, with the addition of the innovative high school, is there a plan to meaningfully reduce student enrollment at the comprehensive high schools?Additionally, I understand North Moore High School is currently under capacity. With land being evaluated along Highway 211 for a potential fourth high school, has the district explored redrawing attendance boundaries to better utilize existing space at North Moore?
Equally important is the student experience. While this may be harder to quantify than construction costs, it is just as critical. Will every Moore County Schools student have equitable access to AP and Honors courses, electives, extracurricular activities, athletics, and arts programs? Will staff be stretched thinner, requiring teachers to cover multiple subjects or prep levels? Will we see fewer teams, clubs, or leadership opportunities? And as a small, close-knit county, can our businesses, volunteers, sponsors, and community partners realistically support four high schools when support already feels stretched?
I respectfully urge the Board to engage directly with affected families and the County Commissioners, clearly present all options and long-term costs, and work collaboratively with the community before asking taxpayers to vote.
Thank you for your time and service.

Jim Pedersen, a school board candidate, said he was the self-appointed watchdog for the school board. He opposed the rush to choose a police chief, and the board needed consistency in leadership. He said a police chief should focus on facts because theory does not hold up in court.

The next meeting is Feb. 2 at 1:30.

Jan. 13, 2026

Stephanie M. Sellers

Submit news tips, events and interview requests to editor@sandhills.news.

Sandhills News is plain-English local government reporting that explains how decisions affect your land, taxes, schools and rights.