Former UNC provost sues university, trustees over alleged open meetings violations
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Former provost Chris Clemens sues UNC-Chapel Hill alleging open meetings breaches
- Lawsuit alleges trustees used deleted messages, texts to bypass public oversight
- Clemens seeks legal limits on electronic deliberations without public access
Former UNC-Chapel Hill Provost Chris Clemens, who served in the role for three years before stepping down in May, on Monday sued the university and its Board of Trustees, alleging violations of North Carolina’s open-meetings and public-records laws.
The lawsuit accuses the board of “systematically hiding matters of grave public concern behind closed doors” by meeting in closed session for reasons that are not permitted in state law; conducting deliberations over text messages without giving proper notice or access to the public; and “deliberately communicating” about public business on platforms that automatically delete messages in order to “evade records retention and public inspection.”
“The result is the same each time — less transparency, less accountability, erratic governance, and a steady erosion of public trust in the nation’s first public university,” the suit reads.
The Assembly first reported on the lawsuit Monday. A university spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit to The News & Observer, as did former trustees Chair John Preyer, who is accused in the complaint of calling for a vote of no-confidence in Clemens. Preyer did so in text messages to other trustees, according to the lawsuit.
Much of the complaint’s allegations stem from an episode this spring in which the Board of Trustees for months delayed votes to confer tenure on dozens of faculty, and activity related to that decision that occurred at a March meeting.
After Clemens briefed university deans and vice provosts on the board’s inaction on tenure at that meeting and conveyed to them that the closed-session discussion dealt instead with “a sweeping policy discussion about tenure’s institutional value and global costs,” the lawsuit contends that a “retaliation campaign” against Clemens began that ultimately resulted in university leadership asking him to resign as provost. In asking for his resignation, those leaders — who are not named — cited Clemens’ purported “inappropriate disclosure of the closed session discussion” as the reason for doing so.
But the claim doesn’t center on Clemens’ resignation, specifically. Instead, he is seeking several judgments against the board that would find them in violation of state law on open meetings and public records. Further, Clemens is asking that the board be prohibited from using auto-delete features for messages and from conducting deliberations through electronic messages without notice.
Attorney David McKenzie, who filed the lawsuit on Clemens’ behalf, declined to comment further on the matter, telling The N&O the suit “speaks for itself.”
It’s not McKenzie’s first time suing the UNC trustees; last year he accused the board of violating open-meetings law after the trustees apparently discussed athletics and related financial matters during closed session. The university settled with McKenzie for $25,000 and the terms of the agreement required Preyer to publicly commit to following the law at a Board of Trustees meeting last September.
On Wednesday, Board of Trustees Chair Malcolm Turner issued a statement criticizing the lawsuit.
“The former Provost’s baseless assault on this volunteer Board and how it conducts its business stands in stark contrast to the widely recognized excellence the University has achieved under this Board’s leadership,” Turner said. “His allegations are disappointing and inaccurate, not to mention a waste of taxpayer dollars, for which this former officer of the University shows no regard. His claims will not withstand scrutiny.”
Complaint centers on March meeting
At its March 20 meeting, the suit states, the Board of Trustees received from Clemens a slate of tenure recommendations to consider. As is typically the case, the eligible faculty remembers had received several levels of approval to be granted tenure.
The lawsuit says the board entered into closed session during the meeting with the “purported reason” being to “discuss individual tenure candidates” — one of a handful of purposes outlined in state law for which public bodies, including university boards, are permitted to meet in private.
But once the board was in closed session, “the discussion immediately departed from individual tenure candidates,” the lawsuit states.
“Instead, the Board debated the financial impact and existential value of tenure as an institution, with some members voicing opposition to its very premise,” the complaint reads. “What began as routine personnel review morphed into a closed-door policy referendum on whether tenure should exist at UNC-Chapel Hill and whether the Board should even vote on the pending recommendations.”
Following the debate, which included questioning the net-present, or lifetime, costs of granting tenure, the board decided to defer the tenure votes until a future meeting “without evaluating any individual candidate’s qualifications, competence, performance, character, or fitness.” The deferral, the state asserts, was “premised on the closed-session policy considerations rather than any individualized assessment.”
Financial and budgetary matters are not listed as exemptions for public bodies meeting openly in North Carolina law.
“The closed session at issue was unlawful because the Board used the personnel exemption to conduct a policy debate on the existential value and global costs of tenure — subjects that must be addressed in open session,” the lawsuit reads.
The March closed session was part of a larger pattern, the suit alleges, with the board previously using such sessions to discuss finances related to athletics, sports conference realignment and the hiring of Bill Belichick to be the head coach of the university’s football team. The Board of Trustees held an emergency meeting to hire Belichick.
Hugh Stevens, a media attorney who specializes in open-meetings and public-records law and has won high-profile cases against UNC, emphasized to The N&O the importance of public bodies following the law on such matters so that the public can be informed about their deliberations.
“These are discussions that potentially affect the entire future of not only UNC-Chapel Hill, but the whole university system,” Stevens said. “And so if you have discussions off the books, off the record or behind closed doors, then you’re depriving the people whose universities they are of the opportunity to form their own opinion about matters like that, including tenure.”
‘Retaliation campaign’ begins
After the March meeting, the lawsuit states, Clemens met with the university’s deans and vice provosts for a regularly scheduled meeting. Knowing that deans had been fielding inquiries about the tenure votes, the suit states, Clemens informed the group that: no tenure decisions had been made at the trustees’ meeting; the board did not consider individual candidates for tenure; and the board instead engaged in a policy discussion about tenure. He did not disclose confidential information about the candidates, the suit states.
After that briefing with deans, Jed Atkins, dean of the School of Civic Life and Leadership, informed Preyer of Clemens’ comments through Signal, an encrypted and secure messaging platform, the suit states. Atkins used a Signal feature that automatically deletes messages after the recipient has viewed them, the suit states.
Preyer then contacted enough trustees through Signal or text messages to constitute a quorum — defined in the board’s bylaws as a majority of the board, which consists of 15 members — to deliberate and build consensus for a no-confidence vote against Clemens, the suit alleges. Preyer contended to other trustees that Clemens had “betrayed” and “denigrated” the board by “inappropriately disclosing closed session discussions,” the suit states.
Under state law, communication among a majority of board members to conduct deliberations is considered an open meeting, and the public must be given notice of the discussion. Additionally, the suit notes that the law does not prohibit the discussion of “matters that were unlawfully placed in closed session,” as the suit alleges the tenure discussion was.
“As Provost, Clemens had a duty to inform academic leadership of the Board’s posture so they could manage operations and communicate accurately; withholding that information would have been a dereliction of those duties,” the complaint reads.
But on March 31, university leaders asked Clemens to resign from his role as provost for disclosing information from closed session, the suit states. He resigned on April 3, with the action becoming effective in mid-May. He then returned to his role on the faculty as a distinguished professor of physics and astronomy.
Stevens told The N&O that Clemens’ stature as provost “raises the stakes” for the lawsuit, especially compared to similar cases that have been filed by the press, faculty or other groups.
“One of the most significant things about this, putting aside the allegations about what’s allegedly been going on, is the fact that someone who was there — in the room, involved in this and had a really important position — has stepped forward to basically challenge it,” Stevens said.
Use of Signal
The suit alleges that the trustees and Atkins’ use of Signal was not an isolated incident.
Instead, “trustees and senior staff have repeatedly relied on off-channel, auto-deleting communications to discuss controversial or consequential Board matters, while simultaneously routing policy debates into closed session,” the complaint reads.
“This combined practice — policy in secret, decisions orchestrated through unnoticed electronic exchanges, and failure to capture/retain related records — constitutes ongoing, systemic, and purposeful evasion of North Carolina law,” the suit continues.
Additionally, the suit alleges Atkins “requires that his leadership team subscribe to a Signal group and conducts a substantial portion of official communications via Signal with auto-delete enabled — not only in exchanges with trustees but as a routine practice.”
State law prohibits public officials from deleting or destroying public records unless approved by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. The suit alleges using auto-delete functions, like those offered on Signal, is a violation of that law.
Stevens agreed: “Frankly ... if they’re using this for the purpose that is alleged, then I think it’s a clear violation of the public records law,” he said.
Among other relief, Clemens is asking for a judgment that would declare the use of such functions illegal and prohibit the board from using them to conduct or discuss public business.
“The Board’s practice of conducting public business through auto-deleting messages represents an ongoing violation that will continue absent judicial intervention,” the suit reads.
This story was originally published September 22, 2025 at 3:03 PM with the headline "Former UNC provost sues university, trustees over alleged open meetings violations."
