Sometimes, our work of providing information and commentary on the actions of the UNC Board of Trustees feels a bit niche – hugely important and consequential for Carolina, but not always attention grabbing to the masses.
That changed when former Provost Chris Clemens filed a lawsuit earlier this week against the Trustees, alleging that members of the Board broke the law by circumventing the Open Meetings Law and the Public Records Law.
The suit states:
“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 autodeleting platforms such as Signal 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.”
What seems to be getting the most headlines is the way this improper, concealed communication factored into the hiring of Bill Belichick. Of course, Bill Belichick in a headline helps with clicks. But the other allegations are just as concerning.
One of the primary grievances in the suit was the Board’s mishandling of tenure nominations, which we wrote about previously.
The suit states:
“The core episode here is straightforward. The Board entered closed session under the ‘personnel’ exemption ostensibly to consider tenure candidates. Once the doors were closed, however, the discussion turned to tenure as a policy— its existential value to UNC, its financial implications, and whether to defer an entire slate. North Carolina law draws that line with clarity: specific personnel matters may be closed; general policy must be public. By debating tenure policy in secret and acting on that secret debate, the Board crossed the statutory boundary and violated the Open Meetings Law.”
While the tenure debacle is one of the more egregious actions taken by the Board of Trustees recently, it is only one of a long list of transgressions. As paragraph 65 of the suit states:
“Over the past four years, the Board has engaged in a pattern and practice of systematically violating the Open Meetings Law by improperly invoking closed session exemptions to shield policy and budget deliberations from public scrutiny.”
This lawsuit may be breaking news, but many of its accusations and revelations are not. Just last week, we wrote about how the Trustees have repeatedly circumvented established processes at the University for their own personal and political gain. Now, this behavior is being exposed for what it is: illegal.
In this day and age, it’s easy to rely on quick, informal means of technology to communicate. The application Signal is specifically meant to be private, encrypted and, in many instances, to auto-delete messages after a period of time. Whether the Trustees’ use of the application is partially attributed to carelessness or entirely attributed to intentionally circumventing public scrutiny is unknown. Regardless of their intentions, it cannot be tolerated.
While this lawsuit is not a final verdict, it is a wake-up call. UNC System President Peter Hans and the Board of Governors should properly investigate the situation and take action to be sure this sort of behavior does not continue. More stories are already coming to light indicating this form of concealed communication might be a widespread trend, and it has led to too many troubling questions: Was this a concerted effort? How long has this been going on? How many prior public records requests have gone unfulfilled because officials are using unauthorized communications to hide information?
Being a member of the UNC Board of Trustees is an honor that should be bestowed to those who want to serve the University – not have the University serve them. Time and again, these Trustees have shown they are not committed to upholding that standard of conduct. This lawsuit is simply a culminating consequence for a series of bad behavior that has gone on for far too long.