UNC, former provost ‘completing’ deal ending meetings, records lawsuit

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a former provost are working on a deal to end an open meetings and public records lawsuit against the school. A court filing Monday predicted a quick resolution of the dispute.

“The Parties are in the process of completing a settlement agreement that will result in the dismissal of this action and anticipate that it will be executed shortly,” according to the document filed Monday in Orange County Superior Court. Lawyers for UNC-CH and former provost Chris Clemens signed the document.

“The Parties agree that all deadlines for discovery, including responses to Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission between the parties and subpoenas, are stayed pending the execution of the settlement agreement,” the court filing continued. “As a result, the Parties have no expectation of further proceedings in this matter and have not prepared a proposed schedule for further proceedings.”

A Superior Court judge dismissed portions of Clemens’ lawsuit during a December hearing. The judge followed up the following morning with an order partially granting the university’s request for a protective order in the case.

Judge Thomas Currin agreed to throw out two of three claims the university targeted in a motion to dismiss. He allowed one of the targeted claims to proceed.

Currin struck portions of the former provost’s suit alleging “deliberate destruction of public records” and “unlawful electronic meeting without notice.”

Clemens could continue to pursue allegations that university officials engaged in a “pattern and practice of open meetings violations,” Currin ruled.

The university did not seek in its motion to dismiss Clemens’ accusations about an “unlawful use of personnel exemption.” That type of exemption to public meetings laws can be used to conduct some government business in closed sessions.

“We appreciate the court’s dismissal of two of former Provost Clemens’ unfounded claims,” said Paul Newton, UNC-CH vice chancellor and general counsel, in a prepared statement. “The University remains confident that the evidence will show that each of the four Board meetings that remain a subject of the Complaint were conducted properly and in full compliance with the Open Meetings Law.”  

“Before this week’s hearings, Plaintiff’s counsel had already asked the Court to allow him to file an amended complaint,” Newton added. “Unfortunately, in light of the Court’s rulings, plaintiff’s counsel forecast that he plans to file yet another amended complaint. While we do not relish wasting taxpayer time and money, we look forward to continuing to defend our reputation of consistently and completely responding to open meetings and public records responsibilities in good faith, in a timely manner, and in accordance with the law.”  

David McKenzie, the former provost’s lawyer, responded to the court’s actions in an emailed statement to Carolina Journal.

“We respect the Court’s rulings — and note that UNC’s characterization of them is incomplete,” McKenzie wrote. “Two claims were dismissed on narrow legal grounds. The Court made no finding that trustees complied with the law. The core Open Meetings claim about the Board’s closed-session tenure discussions remains, as does the Pattern and Practice claim and a public-records claim now moving forward. Discovery proceeds.”

“The dismissals turned on legal interpretation, not facts,” he added. “The Court did not find that trustees avoided auto-deleting apps or that the Board Chair’s texts to 11 trustees in five minutes was proper. We will seek appellate review on both issues.”

“As for ‘consistently and completely’ responding to transparency obligations — UNC will have the opportunity to make that claim under oath. We look forward to testing it,” McKenzie added.

Clemens accused university trustees of conducting improper business in closed sessions and using the Signal messaging app improperly to bypass state public records requirements.

The university filed a motion last October seeking dismissal of much of Clemens’ complaint.

“The North Carolina Public Records Act and Open Meetings Law provide citizens with the right to ensure they have access to the records and deliberations of public bodies as well as remedies that can be levied against public bodies for failing to honor those rights,” lawyers representing the university and its Board of Trustees wrote. “The fundamental flaw with the Verified Complaint is that it fails to understand what rights North Carolina law creates and what remedies it provides.”

Clemens “claims that the Defendants violated North Carolina’s Public Records Act by destroying public records without having bothered to request those same records as is required under the Public Records Act,” UNC-CH leaders’ court filing continued. “He invents a claim out of whole cloth that Defendants have a ‘pattern and practice’ of violating North Carolina’s Open Meetings Law. He attempts, through clever drafting, to avoid black-letter North Carolina law regarding what constitutes an ‘official meeting’ under the Open Meetings Law. And finally, he requests remedies for these purported violations of the Public Records Act and the Open Meetings Law that wildly exceed what the law allows.”

“Put differently, Plaintiff Clemens demands more of the law than it has to offer — as such the Second, Third, and Fourth Claims of the Verified Complaint should be dismissed,” the university’s lawyers wrote.

Clemens served as executive vice chancellor and provost from February 2022 until May 2025, when “UNC leadership” asked for his resignation. University officials cited “inappropriate disclosure” of closed-session discussions, according to the complaint filed Sept. 22.

“Every trustee of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill takes an oath to ‘solemnly and sincerely’ be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina,” wrote McKenzie in the original complaint. “That oath is more than ceremony. It binds the Board of Trustees to the State’s transparency laws the Open Meetings Law and the Public Records Law and to the basic premise that the public’s business must be done in public. Yet this UNC Board treats that oath as a suggestion.”

“This Complaint will show a pattern and practice by the UNC Board of Trustees by systematically hiding matters of grave public concern behind closed doors: invoking closed session for reasons not authorized by statute; conducting deliberations electronically without proper notice or public access; and deliberately communicating about public business on auto-deleting platforms such as Signal to evade records retention and public inspection,” McKenzie continued. “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.”

Clemens asked the court “to declare that the Board’s use of the personnel exemption to shield discussion of tenure policy was unlawful; to enjoin the Board from using closed session to conduct general policy or budget debates; to require precise, statute-tracking closure motions and compliant minutes and general accounts; to prohibit the use of auto-deleting applications for public business; to order training; and to award attorneys’ fees as permitted by law.”

“UNC, former provost ‘completing’ deal ending meetings, records lawsuit” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.