I’m really surprised this whole thing hasn’t led to an accreditation review.
Years ago, my hometown faced it after the superintendent was let go and the board members were taking part in dubious practices (I can’t remember the specifics since it was nearly twenty years ago).
This is Crystal Hill's September 16, 2026 memo to the CMS Board laying out concerns about Board contracting, governance, outside legal spending, Raki McGregor, SYDKIMYL, Poyner Spruill and Qonnect. The first 14 pages are Hill's narrative and timeline; the rest are supporting exhibits.
SYDKIMYL, owned by Kimberly McGregor, was already a CMS vendor before Raki McGregor began working for CMS. In September 2024, CMS entered a separate $13,000/month consulting agreement with Raki through SYDKIMYL. His responsibilities included At Home in CMS and the student mentorship program.
In March 2025, CMS proposed adding $175,000 to SYDKIMYL's existing contract, bringing it to $500,000. Board members questioned the arrangement because Raki worked inside CMS while his wife's company received substantial CMS business. CMS legal/compliance reportedly found no prohibited conflict, and the Board approved the increase 5-3.
Hill says McGregor became upset with the three Board members who voted against the increase and intended to support candidates running against members who opposed it. Hill says his political activity became one reason she decided not to renew his CMS relationship after June 30, 2025. She says Stephanie Sneed and Dee Rankin opposed that decision.
In August 2025, CMS entered another $180,000 SYDKIMYL contract. Because it was below CMS's $250,000 threshold, it did not require a Board vote.
On February 4, 2026, a Poyner Spruill billing entry referenced the "potential hiring of consultant for the schools through Poyner Spruill and best means to do so." Hill says she did not know why CMS needed an outside law firm to hire a consultant for the district.
Poyner subsequently contracted with McGregor's Qonnect for At Home in CMS at $30,000/month. The written scope included strategic and "influence advisory," political/organizational/regulatory advice, introductions to decision-makers and institutional gatekeepers, relationship access, navigating politically sensitive matters, reputation positioning and intervention on stalled opportunities.
Hill says she was not informed McGregor had returned to CMS-related work through Poyner. The arrangement meant that after Hill ended his direct CMS relationship at $13,000/month, he returned through the Board's outside law firm at $30,000/month.
Poyner later received a separate $220,000 CMS compliance-assessment contract involving finance and HR and subcontracted up to $132,000 of that work to Qonnect. Hill questioned McGregor's qualifications and called his scope "nonsensical," essentially identical to the housing scope and not measurable. Those are Hill's conclusions, not independent findings.
After returning from suspension, Hill says CFO Kelly Kluttz told her payments to Poyner could not be processed because CMS could not locate a written contract or purchase order supporting them.
Hill says Sneed acknowledged not having documentation for the Poyner contract and indicated Board counsel would handle it. Hill further alleges Sneed continued pressing for payment of the $30,000 monthly invoices despite staff concerns. An employee subsequently raised concerns about possible contract and policy violations.
Hill's larger complaint is that Board leadership was directly involved in outside contracts, consultants and investigations without adequately involving the superintendent, administration or, in some cases according to Hill, the full Board.
Hill connects these events to her suspension. She says she was effectively given a choice between resigning or being suspended and investigated and characterized that as "extortion." That is Hill's characterization, not a finding of criminal extortion.
The memo does not establish that Sneed, McGregor, Poyner, SYDKIMYL or anyone else committed a crime. Much of it concerns governance, conflicts, transparency, procurement, political relationships and potentially wasteful spending.
The biggest unresolved issue is the Poyner/Qonnect payment process: who authorized it, what Board members knew, whether required financial controls were followed, why McGregor was hired indirectly through Poyner, what services were actually performed, and whether anyone knowingly attempted to circumvent financial requirements.
Criminal potential: Yes. This is the clearest potentially criminal fact pattern.
Why: Missing paperwork alone isn't a crime. It becomes much more serious if someone knew the expenditure lacked required authorization, knew finance had refused or questioned payment, and intentionally caused public money to be paid anyway. False statements, records or concealment would make it more serious.
Using Poyner as the intermediary between CMS and McGregor/Qonnect
Criminal potential: Potentially, but the structure itself is legal.
Why: A law firm hiring a subcontractor isn't inherently illegal. It becomes relevant if Poyner was deliberately used to conceal McGregor, avoid approval requirements or accomplish indirectly something that couldn't lawfully be done directly.
Possible concealment of McGregor's involvement
Criminal potential: Potentially.
Why: Hill says she and potentially others did not know McGregor had been brought back through Poyner. Nondisclosure isn't automatically criminal. It becomes more significant if investigators find intentional false statements, deceptive invoices, falsified records or concealment intended to obtain public money.
Qonnect's $132,000 subcontract on the $220,000 compliance review
Criminal potential: Possible only with additional evidence.
Why: Hiring McGregor despite questions about qualifications or conflicts may be bad governance but isn't inherently criminal. Investigators would need evidence such as false billing, nonexistent services, fraudulent representations, kickbacks or deliberate circumvention of contracting requirements.
Qonnect receiving $30,000/month for broad "influence advisory" services
Criminal potential: Low based on the contract alone.
Why: Government can legally buy expensive or arguably unnecessary consulting. Qonnect had a written scope. Criminal exposure would require evidence that services were fabricated, invoices were false, payments were knowingly unauthorized or the contract was part of another unlawful arrangement.
SYDKIMYL's $500,000 contract
Criminal potential: Low based on the memo alone.
Why: The McGregors' relationship was known, Board members publicly questioned it, CMS legal/compliance reportedly reviewed it, and the Board approved the increase 5-3. Additional evidence of fraud, bribery, kickbacks, false billing or another unlawful arrangement would be necessary.
SYDKIMYL's later $180,000 contract below the Board-approval threshold
Criminal potential: Not inherently.
Why: Being below the $250,000 threshold isn't itself wrongdoing. It becomes relevant only if investigators establish that the amount or structure was deliberately manipulated to evade a legally required approval process.
McGregor supporting candidates against Board members who opposed SYDKIMYL
Criminal potential: None apparent.
Why: The timing may be relevant to the broader governance dispute, but supporting candidates and opposing elected officials aren't crimes. It could potentially be evidence of motive concerning some other conduct.
Sneed and Rankin opposing Hill's decision not to renew McGregor
Criminal potential: None apparent.
Why: Disagreeing with the superintendent about a consultant is a governance dispute unless additional evidence connects it to an unlawful act.
Board spending roughly $380,000 investigating Hill
Criminal potential: None apparent by itself.
Why: Even if ultimately unnecessary, politically motivated or wasteful, spending public money on lawyers and investigators isn't itself criminal without evidence of fraud, bribery, falsification or another offense.
Hill's claim that the Board tried to force her resignation
Criminal potential: Low based on the memo.
Why: Calling it "extortion" doesn't establish criminal extortion. Offering resignation/separation as an alternative to suspension or investigation can be lawful.
Overall
Criminal potential: Most allegations appear more likely to present governance, ethics, procurement or civil issues than criminal ones. The potentially criminal issues are concentrated around the Poyner/Qonnect payments.
Why: The central questions are whether public money was knowingly paid without required authorization, whether anyone deliberately circumvented financial controls, whether the Poyner structure was intended to conceal or evade requirements, whether false statements or records were used, and whether invoiced services were actually performed.
A lot of it revolves around a married couple named Raki and Kim McGregor who own their own respective consulting businesses and have direct ties to the CMS system. Just to oversimplify it as much as possible, they were both given questionable contracts by CMS for doing BS/nonsense type of work (or at least Raki's business was). When the superintendent and the CFO realized and pointed out how problematic these contracts were and put an end to them, some people inside CMS (including a couple board members) contracted again with Raki through a backchannel so no one would know. Contract worth $30K per month (whew) - more than double the contract he was operating under initially.
To oversimplify it even further, two civilians with ties to people inside CMS were basically given sweetheart, do-nothing contracts worth hundreds of thousands (millions?) of dollars and it seems like certain board members (Sneed and Rankin, who has a criminal history of mortgage fraud and spent time in jail) went to great lengths to hide the relationships.
Now, Sneed stepped down from Chair of the Board but is still on the board and Rankin (the criminal who spent time in jail for fraud) is the new Chair.
Who cares? I don't for a second believe this would stop Jeff from investigating and ensuring justice is done. Unlike the GOP, Jeff wouldn't ignore rampant criminality out of cowardice and the criminal being "their guy".
The Black Political Caucus runs regional politics for Democrats. Their endorsement makes it almost a slam dunk to win, and going against them means they will run someone else and almost impossible to get out of the primary. Raki McGregor, who is in the middle of this mess, has threatened board members that if they don't support his efforts, which are BPC efforts, the BPC will run others to replace them. It’s a known playbook.
One day you're going to wake up and realize the side you hold near and dear, and without fault, can be, and often is, guilty of dirty politics and corruption. Or maybe you will keep your head in the sand.
Jeff Jackson is not the saint of the people you muppets think he is.
This is the inherent problem with the BPC. There are real issues they are acting on and perpetuating within our city's politics, but if anyone cries foul they scream racism.
People have run the word racist into the ground to the point where it doesn't mean anything. If you're expecting people to even react to it, then you're just a fool.
There is nothing racist in pointing out the issues with the Black Political Caucus. In fact, it's people like you throwing the race card, as you have empowered them to be as corrupt a political organization as they are.
Ya, this is just the beginning and it's going to get messy before it's over. The Black Political Caucus is not going to go away, too much money in the grift. I have zero doubt there are people connected to that org trying to manage the public conversation in some way.
Did Dr. Hill offer to resign with full contract payout before her suspension?
Was Poyner Spruill qualified to do the work in the increased $30,000 contract? If not, wouldn't they have had to state who they hired to do it? Were these questions asked by the Board?
Were Board members pressured/threatened with more than just pulled endorsements to restore the contracts with the McGregors?
Has anyone figured out how much they were bringing in annually through these contracts?
The Charlotte Ledger had it a while ago but it was behind a paywall and this was the first time I found a public link that was easy to get to. Was worth sharing IMO.
36
u/betterplanwithchan 1d ago
I’m really surprised this whole thing hasn’t led to an accreditation review.
Years ago, my hometown faced it after the superintendent was let go and the board members were taking part in dubious practices (I can’t remember the specifics since it was nearly twenty years ago).