Former Provost Sues UNC-Chapel Hill Trustees Over Closed Meetings

Former UNC-Chapel Hill Provost Chris Clemens filed a lawsuit Monday accusing the university’s Board of Trustees of “systematically hiding matters of grave public concern,” including their decision to postpone consideration of tenure cases because of their doubts about the practice. 

The suit also sheds light on Clemens’ surprise resignation earlier this year, alleging that he was forced out as provost after informing faculty of the tenure decision, which he says illegally took place in closed session.

“I have spent my whole career serving UNC because I believe in our mission and our people, especially my faculty colleagues,” Clemens wrote in a statement to The Assembly. “It is extremely disappointing that legal action is required to maintain the basic norms of transparency and good governance.”

Kevin Best, the university’s senior director of media relations, said in a statement, “We’re aware of the litigation and are reviewing it closely. As this is an active legal matter, the University will not provide comment while the case is pending.”

Malcolm Turner, chair of the Board of Trustees, criticized the lawsuit in a statement. “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.”

Tenure has become a flashpoint between UNC-Chapel Hill faculty and trustees this year. Faculty say it is necessary both to ensure their academic freedom and, more practically, to recruit scholars. Some trustees have expressed doubt about tenure, saying it is too expensive and limits the university’s staffing flexibility. 

Clemens has not always been seen as the faculty’s champion. Many faculty believe Republican legislators interfered in the search process to have Clemens appointed provost in 2021. Even some trustees said his political leanings helped him get the job. Clemens was seen as an ally of the board, who are appointed by the legislature and the UNC System Board of Governors.

Clemens’ allegations in the lawsuit center on a March Board of Trustees meeting. According to the complaint, the board entered closed session to discuss a slate of faculty who were being considered for tenure, which is legal as personnel matters are exempt from public record under North Carolina law. But once in closed session, Clemens says, the board did not discuss individual cases. Trustees instead debated the value of tenure more generally, ultimately deciding to delay voting on all of the cases before them.

“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 suit says.

Clemens said he held a regularly scheduled meeting later that day with the deans and vice provosts who reported to him. They were already receiving questions about the tenure cases, his suit alleges, because they were listed on the board’s public agenda.

“As Provost, Clemens had a duty to inform academic leadership of the Board’s posture so they could manage operations and communicate accurately,” the suit says, “withholding that information would have been a dereliction of those duties.”

According to the suit, Jed Atkins, dean and director of the School of Civic Life and Leadership—who was embroiled in a separate fight over faculty hiring that included Clemens—told John Preyer, then chair of the trustees, about Clemens’ briefing. Preyer contacted a majority of the other board members to discuss a potential vote of no confidence in Clemens.

“Preyer claimed Clemens had ‘betrayed’ the Board by inappropriately disclosing closed session discussions to faculty and had ‘denigrated’ trustees,” the suit says.

Neither Preyer nor Atkins immediately responded to a request for comment.

At the end of the month, Clemens says, he was asked to resign due to the “inappropriate disclosure of the closed session discussion.” 

Though Clemens’ suit is focused on open meetings laws, not whether his ouster was legal, he disputes that he shared anything inappropriate.

“The Board’s subsequent effort to punish him for ‘leaking’ closed-session information only highlights the culture of secrecy at odds with the Open Meetings Law and the Public Records Law,” the complaint says, adding that Clemens did not reveal any confidential personnel information. “Those statutes authorize closing a meeting—not gagging lawful discussion of policy that belongs in public.”

Faculty voiced widespread opposition to the March postponement, especially after the board delayed votes on most tenure cases again in May. The Assembly previously reported on a memo Clemens wrote to Chancellor Lee Roberts that argued against points raised by board members at the March meeting, including that the substantial financial commitment of tenure in the current uncertain funding climate is too risky.

The trustees ultimately approved the delayed tenure cases in June.

Sending a Signal

The lawsuit also alleges that the board has systematically violated public records and open meetings laws.

Clemens claims Atkins used Signal, an encrypted messaging app with an auto-delete feature, to contact Preyer about the tenure discussion. Clemens says the trustees and senior staff have repeatedly used similar apps, including when Preyer conferred with other board members about removing Clemens.  

“These electronic exchanges—undertaken to discuss, coordinate, or advance Board matters—constitute public records based on their content and are subject to the Open Meetings Law’s requirements for notice, public access, and minutes, as well as the Public Records Law’s requirements for retention and access,” the suit says.

Clemens also claims Atkins requires his leadership team to use Signal and conducts a “substantial portion” of his school’s business using the messaging app.

The lawsuit also cites other alleged abuses of closed session by the board, including a November 2023 discussion of athletics finances, a May 2024 discussion of conference realignment, and the December 2024 emergency meeting to deliberate on UNC-CH football coach Bill Belichick’s contract.

Clemens’ lawyer, David McKenzie, successfully sued UNC-CH over the May 2024 meeting. He filed another suit about conference realignment earlier this year. (McKenzie has also represented The Assembly in public records cases.)

Clemens is asking the court to award attorney’s fees, declare that the trustees’ use of closed session was illegal, prevent the board from using closed session to hold general policy and budget debates in the future, require more precise minutes and accounts of closed session meetings, prohibit the use of auto-deleting apps like Signal, and require trustee and staff training in public records and open meetings laws.

This story has been updated with a comment from a UNC-CH spokesperson.