CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (WNCN) – The board of trustees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill met on Thursday for the first time since a recent lawsuit accused its members of hiding information from the public.
The lawsuit, filed in Orange County Superior Court by former UNC Provost Chris Clemens on Monday, alleges several instances of the board holding “unlawful” sessions and making significant decisions behind closed doors, including the high-profile hiring of Bill Belichick as its new football coach back in December.
In the suit, Clemens claims the board displayed a pattern of misusing closed sessions, breaking North Carolina’s open meetings and public records laws, as well as maintaining a double standard in the way it makes these critical decisions.
-
In this photo taken Monday, April 20, 2015, the Bell Tower looms over campus at The University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, N.C. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome) -
In this photo taken Monday, April 20, 2015 azaleas bloom around the Old Well on campus at The University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, N.C. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome) -
In this photo taken Monday, April 20, 2015 a historical marker erected on Franklin Street provides some informational significance on campus at The University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, N.C. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)
One particular instance occurred earlier this spring when the board of trustees elected to delay voting on faculty tenure after debating the long-term cost of those promotions, according to the lawsuit.
“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 stated.
Clemens also alleged that trustees conducted deliberations “without proper notice or public access” and utilized auto-deleting messaging apps such as Signal “to evade records retention and public inspection.”
The suit also cited several examples related to UNC athletics, specifically hidden discussions revolving around Belichick, along with conversations about potential conference realignment.
-
North Carolina head coach Bill Belichick, center, takes the field before an NCAA football game against Central Florida, Saturday, Sept. 20, 2025, in Orlando, Fla. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack) -
North Carolina head coach Bill Belichick watches from the sidelines during the first half of an NCAA football game against Charlotte in Charlotte, N.C., Saturday, Sept. 6, 2025. (AP Photo/Nell Redmond) -
North Carolina head coach Bill Belichick paces the sideline during the first half of an NCAA college football game against TCU, Monday, Sept. 1, 2025, in Chapel Hill, N.C. (AP Photo/Chris Seward) -
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA – APRIL 12: Head coach Bill Belichick of the North Carolina Tar Heels coaches at Kenan Stadium on April 12, 2025 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. (Photo by Peyton Williams/Getty Images) -
FILE – New North Carolina football coach Bill Belichick holds up a UNC branded sleeveless hoodie presented to him during an NCAA college football news conference announcing his hiring, Dec. 12, 2024, in Chapel Hill, N.C. (AP Photo/Ben McKeown, File)
Concerning Belichick’s hiring, the board called an emergency meeting with “minimal notice” to approve his 5-year, $50 million contract, according to the complaint. The lawsuit argues that Belichick’s “compensation package and entire hiring was already public,” so there was not a proper subject for a closed session.
Meanwhile, the complaint alleges that, unlike the tenure discussions, the board did not apply any 30-year financial “net present cost” analysis to Belichick’s deal. It also states that while trustees claimed tenure commitments were too expensive and needed to be debated in secret, they approved Belichick’s deal quickly and without the same scrutiny — even though it carried similarly massive financial implications.
UNC Board of Trustees Chair Malcolm Turner released the following statement on Wednesday in response to 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. 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.”