The opinion
Judge Johnson
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I believe that plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to go to the jury and to support its verdict on the issue of whether the Board violated G.S. § 15C-325(m)(2) in refusing to renew her contract. The record indicates that following the public meeting of the school board, during which all parties were present and allowed to speak, the board met in executive session. Plaintiff and her attorney were excluded from this executive session, but Dr. Epstein, the assistant superintendent and the individual who conducted the investigation of plaintiff’s complaints and recommended non-renewal, was present. She answered board members’ further questions concerning the investigation, the circumstances surrounding the hiring of plaintiff and other matters relating to the case, all outside the presence of plaintiff and her attorney. I believe this is fundamentally unfair and is evidence of arbitrary and capricious behavior on the part of the school board. I vote to affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
*277 Notwithstanding the above, and recognizing that the question of damages is not before us given the majority decision, I would vote to reverse and remand on the issue of damages.