Former UNC-Chapel Hill Provost Chris Clemens filed an open meetings and public records lawsuit against the university’s Board of Trustees in September 2025, accusing trustees of holding illegal closed sessions and using the encrypted app Signal to conduct board business and evade record-keeping requirements. The case settled in April 2026 with no money changing hands and no admissions of wrongdoing, but a related transparency fight over a withheld $1.2 million investigative report is still in court.
Who Sued and Why
Chris Clemens, an astrophysicist on the UNC faculty since 1998, served as executive vice chancellor and provost beginning in 2021.1Publicedworks.org. Former Provost Sues Board at UNC-Chapel Hill2Chapelboro Media. Clemens v. UNC et al., Verified Complaint, 25CV002442-6703WRAL. UNC Chris Clemens Lawsuit Board of Trustees Open Meetings Law The case number is 25CV002442-670.
The complaint raised four categories of claims. It alleged the board improperly invoked the personnel exemption to hold closed sessions that drifted into general policy debates. It alleged a broader pattern and practice of open meetings violations. It accused the board of deliberately destroying public records by using Signal’s auto-delete feature. And it alleged the board held unlawful electronic meetings without public notice by deliberating through text messages and Signal.4Carolina Journal. UNC Seeks Partial Dismissal of Former Provost’s Open Meetings Lawsuit
The Meetings at the Center of the Case
The lawsuit focused on a March 2025 board meeting in which trustees entered closed session ostensibly to discuss individual tenure candidates. Clemens alleged the discussion turned into a debate over “the existential value and global costs of tenure” as a policy, a topic he said had no closed-session authorization under state law.1Publicedworks.org. Former Provost Sues Board at UNC-Chapel Hill Clemens briefed deans and vice chancellors afterward. The board treated that as a leak and, according to the complaint, retaliated. Preyer used Signal to coordinate a vote of no confidence, and Clemens resigned as provost in the spring of 2025.3WRAL. UNC Chris Clemens Lawsuit Board of Trustees Open Meetings Law
The complaint also targeted a December 12, 2024, emergency meeting called to approve a five-year, $50 million contract for football coach Bill Belichick. His hiring had been publicly announced the day before. Clemens alleged the board gave minimal notice, immediately entered closed session, and then returned to open session for what he called a “perfunctory rubber stamp” of a decision already made in secret.5Chapelboro. Lawsuit Alleges UNC Broke Open Meetings Laws When Hiring Bill Belichick6CBS17. Lawsuit Accuses UNC Board of Hiding Information From Public, Approving Belichick’s Hire in Illegal Closed Session
The filing also pointed to meetings in November 2023 and May 2024 where trustees allegedly used closed sessions to discuss UNC Athletics’ finances and the university’s potential departure from the Atlantic Coast Conference. Clemens argued neither topic fit any statutory closed-session exemption.3WRAL. UNC Chris Clemens Lawsuit Board of Trustees Open Meetings Law
The Signal Allegations
The most novel piece of the complaint involved Signal, an encrypted messaging app whose messages can be set to delete automatically after they’re read. The lawsuit alleged trustees and senior staff “repeatedly” used the platform to coordinate board business. It also alleged that Jed Atkins, dean of UNC’s School of Civic Life and Leadership, required his leadership team to use the app and conducted a “substantial portion” of official school business through it.7The Assembly. Chris Clemens Lawsuit SCiLL The Daily Tar Heel reported reviewing a Signal thread between a trustee and Atkins in which messages were set to auto-delete.8The Daily Tar Heel. BOT Atkins Using Signal Clemens’ attorney, David McKenzie, called the practice a “systemic, and purposeful evasion of North Carolina law.”9Carolina Journal. Judge Orders UNC Trustees to Preserve Records in Signal Case
What Clemens Asked the Court to Do
Clemens asked the court to prohibit the board from using self-deleting apps for public business, declare that deliberating through text messages violates the open meetings law, and order mandatory transparency training for all trustees.3WRAL. UNC Chris Clemens Lawsuit Board of Trustees Open Meetings Law He did not seek monetary damages.
How the Case Moved Through Court
At an October 15, 2025, hearing in Hillsborough, Judge R. Allen Baddour ordered the Board of Trustees to preserve all written communications during the litigation but denied Clemens’ request for forensic imaging of trustees’ phones. Defense counsel Wes Camden had cited a forensic expert’s estimate that imaging would cost roughly $200,000 and called the request “substantially unreasonable.” Baddour said he found “no evidence of spoliation or intentional destruction of evidence,” and he questioned why Clemens had not filed a formal public records request before suing, saying he had “never seen a public records case that did not have any requests for public records.”9Carolina Journal. Judge Orders UNC Trustees to Preserve Records in Signal Case
On October 23, 2025, UNC moved to dismiss three of the four claims. The university argued that four meetings across two years did not amount to a “pattern,” that Clemens had failed to identify any denied public records request, and that text exchanges did not meet the statutory definition of an “official meeting.” Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Paul Newton called it a “wasteful lawsuit.”10CBS17. UNC Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit That Alleges Belichick’s Hire Was Approved Illegally The university did not seek dismissal of the closed-session personnel-exemption claim.4Carolina Journal. UNC Seeks Partial Dismissal of Former Provost’s Open Meetings Lawsuit
Superior Court Judge S. Thomas Currin dismissed two claims with prejudice: the allegation that trustees deliberately destroyed public records and the allegation that they held an unlawful electronic meeting without notice. He allowed the “pattern and practice” claim to proceed alongside the closed-session claim.11The Daily Tar Heel. University Clemens Lawsuit Dismissal Update McKenzie said the dismissals turned on “narrow legal grounds” of statutory interpretation, not factual findings about compliance.12Carolina Journal. Judge Dismisses Portion of Ex-Provost’s Lawsuit Against UNC Currin also partially granted a protective order narrowing Clemens’ 121 requests for admission.
On December 12, 2025, Clemens moved to amend his complaint, citing newly released records from November that included text exchanges among trustees discussing his potential resignation.11The Daily Tar Heel. University Clemens Lawsuit Dismissal Update
How It Ended
On January 9, 2026, both sides jointly requested a 45-day stay, disclosing settlement discussions.13Carolina Journal. UNC, Former Provost Seek 45-Day Stay in Open Meetings Records Suit They announced a settlement on April 6, 2026. Neither side recovered money, each bore its own costs, and neither admitted wrongdoing.14The Assembly. Former UNC-Chapel Hill Provost Settles Lawsuit The settlement contained no publicly reported commitments from UNC on future open meetings compliance or policy changes.15News & Observer. Clemens Settles UNC Open Meetings Lawsuit
Clemens announced in April 2026 that he would return to his faculty role in the Department of Physics and Astronomy.16The Assembly. Clemens Provost Resign UNC-Chapel Hill Civic Life John Preyer resigned from the Board of Trustees in January 2026.15News & Observer. Clemens Settles UNC Open Meetings Lawsuit
The Earlier 2024 Athletics Lawsuit
Clemens’ case was not the first open meetings challenge to the board. Attorney David McKenzie, who later represented Clemens, filed a complaint in Orange County in May 2024 challenging plans to discuss athletics finances in closed session. On May 16, 2024, Judge Alyson Grine issued a temporary restraining order barring closed-session discussion of UNC Athletics’ financials, budgeting, deficits, and conference realignment strategy.17News & Observer. UNC Board of Trustees Open Meetings Athletics That case settled in July 2024. The university paid $25,000 to cover McKenzie’s fees and costs, and Preyer publicly committed to comply with the open meetings law.18WRAL. UNC Settles Open Meetings Lawsuit
The Ongoing Media Lawsuit Over the SCiLL Report
The transparency fight at UNC-Chapel Hill continues in a separate case. In summer 2025, Chancellor Lee Roberts ordered an independent review of the School of Civic Life and Leadership, hiring K&L Gates to conduct it. The seven-month investigation, led by attorney Nathan Huff, involved interviews with more than 50 people, a review of over 200,000 documents, and a final report exceeding 400 pages. UNC paid the firm $1.2 million from its endowment.19The Daily Tar Heel. University SCiLL Investigation Withheld20The Assembly. UNC-Chapel Hill Concludes Civics School Investigation, Won’t Release Findings
The university refused to release the report or an executive summary when the review concluded in early 2026. Roberts called it “all personnel information” subject to attorney-client privilege.21Inside Higher Ed. Chapel Hill Keeps Refusing to Release $1.2M Report on SCiLL Newton cited exceptions in the North Carolina Public Records Act for personnel information and attorney work product, and Chief Governance Officer David Lambeth III argued the report is “trial preparation materials” because SCiLL-related claims “could still form the basis of future legal proceedings.”22WRAL. UNC School of Civic Life and Leadership Independent Academic Unit
On April 10, 2026, a coalition of six media outlets filed suit in Orange County Superior Court to compel disclosure, case number 26CV000945-670. The plaintiffs are WRAL-TV, the News & Observer, the Daily Tar Heel, the Assembly, NC Newsline, and Carolina Public Press, represented by Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych. They argue the report is a public record because a public university commissioned it, public funds paid for it, and university officials received it. They cite a 2014 precedent in which UNC released a full investigation into fraudulent courses.23The Assembly. Lawsuit UNC-Chapel Hill Civic Life On April 21, 2026, the coalition moved for an immediate hearing, asking a judge to review the report in chambers and order UNC to redact and release any non-confidential portions.24Carolina Journal. Media Outlets Seek Immediate Hearing in UNC SCiLL Report Lawsuit As of mid-2026, no hearing date or ruling has been reported.