The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s top lawyer accused former provost Chris Clemans Monday of providing statements under oath that are “not true” in an open meetings and public records lawsuit against the university.
The accusation accompanied the university’s release of public records to Clemens’ lawyer.
“Chris Clemens has sued UNC and its Board of Trustees for allegedly violating North Carolina’s Public Records Act and Open Meetings Law,” said Paul Newton, UNC-CH vice chancellor and general counsel, in a prepared statement. “He took this step before ever requesting the public records that his lawsuit claims were unlawfully destroyed.”
“Weeks after the lawsuit was filed, Clemens’s legal counsel, David McKenzie, finally requested those records,” Newton added. “The University produced records for McKenzie earlier today. Critically, these records show that several of Clemens’s sworn statements in the Complaint are not true.”
Newton cites three specific accusations in Clemens’ suit.
“Clemens states under oath that Trustee [John] Preyer used electronic messages to solicit support for a vote of no confidence in him,” Newton said. “The records show that none of the Trustees, including Trustee Preyer, said anything about a vote of no confidence. This is unsurprising, given that no one who presently sits on the Board of Trustees has ever moved for or voted in support of such a vote through this Board.”
Second, the former provost “states under oath that the Board of Trustees used electronic communications to discuss removing him as Provost,” Newton said. “The records show that none of the Trustees mentioned removing Clemens as Provost. This is equally unsurprising because the Board of Trustees lacks the lawful authority to remove the Provost.”
Third, Clemens “states under oath that Trustee Preyer stated that Clemens had ‘betrayed’ the Board of Trustees by inappropriately disclosing closed session discussions to faculty and had ‘denigrated’ trustees,” Newton said. “The records clearly show that Trustee Preyer said neither of these things.”
Newton targeted another accusation from the former provost.
“In his Complaint, Clemens chastises the UNC Board members for treating their oath to the State of North Carolina ‘as a suggestion,’”Newton said. “As it turns out, the only person who appears to have treated his oath as a suggestion was Clemens, who swore that ‘I, Chris Clemens, being first duly sworn, depose and say … I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint, and the facts stated therein are true to my personal knowledge.’”
“Through their lawsuit, Clemens and his counsel attacked both the character and motives of the Board,” Newton added. “They did so without even bothering to learn the true facts through a simple public records request. Their premature and ill-advised actions have forced the University, its Trustees, and — ultimately — taxpayers to bear the expense and distraction of responding to their baseless claims. We remain confident that the facts will continue to show that neither the University nor its Trustees have violated their obligations under North Carolina law.”
“Because Clemens and his lawyer have failed to comply with requisite legal processes, and have misstated the facts, the University and its Trustees will pursue every avenue to have Clemens and his counsel pay the expenses associated with defending against this meritless lawsuit,” Newton concluded.
The university filed a motion on Oct. 23 seeking dismissal of most 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’ second claim for relief alleges a “pattern and practice of open meetings violations.” His third claim alleges “deliberate destruction of public records.” The fourth claim alleges an “unlawful electronic meeting without notice.”
The court filing does not seek dismissal of the lawsuit’s first claim for relief. It cites “unlawful use of personnel exemption.” That type of exemption can be used to conduct some public business in closed meeting sessions.
Orange County Superior Court Judge Allen Baddour ordered university officials during an Oct. 15 hearing to maintain records connected to the suit. Baddour rejected Clemens’ request for “forensic imaging” of university leaders’ phones.
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 David McKenzie, Clemens’ lawyer, 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 asks 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.”
The university responded to the outcome of the Oct. 15 hearing.
“Today we demonstrated that the motion giving rise to this hearing was a waste of taxpayer funds and of the court’s time,” Newton said in a prepared statement. “During the hearing, Plaintiff abandoned nearly everything requested in his motion, and his remaining requests were denied.
“Today’s hearing concluded with the University agreeing to an Order from the Court that requires the Trustees to do what they have already been doing — preserving evidence during the pendency of this litigation,” Newton continued. “We appreciate the Court’s acknowledgement that Plaintiff presented no evidence that records have been improperly destroyed. We remain fully committed to transparent and compliant governance.
“While we have serious concerns about the reckless disregard for taxpayer resources involved in this unnecessary case and the groundless attacks directed at many of our Trustee members by Plaintiff, we remain confident that we will prevail following a trial on the merits of the claims,” Newton added.
The post UNC counsel says former provost’s sworn statements are ‘not true’ appeared first on Carolina Journal.