UNC trustee chair commits to following open meetings law after lawsuit. What he said

The chair of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees on Thursday publicly committed to following North Carolina law on open meetings — a key stipulation of a now-settled lawsuit filed this spring against the trustees for alleged and suggested violations of the law.

The issue at the center of the lawsuit, filed by Triangle attorney David McKenzie, stemmed from a special meeting the board held in May to discuss the university’s budget. During that special meeting, board Chair John Preyer suggested the board meet in closed session to discuss the finances of the athletics department, and trustee Jennifer Lloyd mentioned that the board had previously discussed athletics during a separate closed session — both instances of which would appear to violate state law.

State law requires meetings of public bodies, including the boards that govern the state’s public universities, to be open to the public.

The law outlines specific instances in which the bodies can hold part of their meetings behind closed doors, including to preserve attorney-client privilege and to consider the qualifications of applicants for employment, among others. Financial and budgetary matters are not listed as exemptions to the bodies meeting openly.

On Thursday, Preyer read the following statement at a regularly scheduled trustees meeting:

“[In] May of 2024, a legal complaint was filed against the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, alleging violations of the North Carolina Open Meetings Act. The board disputes the lawsuit, but the lawsuit has been resolved. The board is committed to compliance with the North Carolina Open Meetings Act and will continue to meet in closed session only for the purpose enumerated in state law.”

Trustees allegedly violated open meetings law

Under UNC System policy, trustee boards at North Carolina’s public universities are tasked with taking an up-or-down vote on university budgets prepared by their campus chancellors, which are then forwarded to the system-level Board of Governors.

But at a May 13 special meeting, the UNC trustees approved two line-item amendments to the university’s budget: one change to divert spending on diversity, equity and inclusion to police, and another to carve out the athletics budget from the overall spending plan to allow for further scrutiny of that department’s financial standing. (UNC System President Peter Hans later told reporters that the trustees did not have the authority to divert the DEI funds or to take any action on the budget other than a vote to approve or reject the plan, effectively nullifying both actions.)

The board was on a tight deadline to approve the spending plan, which was due to the Board of Governors on the day of the special meeting.

While the trustees discussed both the DEI and athletics budget lines at-length before taking their vote, several trustees said they needed additional information about the athletics item, specifically, to allay their concerns. Preyer suggested the board, in order to get the “imperative” information, meet in closed session about the issue at a regularly scheduled meeting later in the week.

“I really don’t see why we can’t have an extended discussion on this, because I think it is imperative for the board to hear all of this, in closed session,” Preyer said at the May 13 special meeting.

At the board’s regularly scheduled meeting on May 16, the board met in closed session, but did not discuss athletics. Preyer clarified his intentions during his remarks to the board.

“I want to clarify comments made [at the special meeting] that made a suggestion that we planned a separate budget presentation for athletics in an upcoming closed session,” Preyer said at that meeting. “We do not schedule budget presentations and discussions for closed session. And we did not do that this week.”

At other points in the May 13 special meeting, Lloyd referenced a previous instance, at the board’s November meeting, in which the board discussed athletics during a closed session.

Lawsuit filed, settled

The trustees’ references to considering athletics matters during closed sessions raised red flags for McKenzie, the Triangle attorney.

On May 15, two days after the special meeting, McKenzie filed a complaint in Orange County Superior Court against the university and the board, accusing them of breaching the state’s open meetings laws. McKenzie also sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the board from holding a closed session meeting he claimed violated statutory requirements.

The request for a restraining order was successful, with Orange County Superior Court Judge Alyson Adams Grine prohibiting UNC from discussing in closed session “UNC Athletics’ financials, budgeting, deficit, or ongoing or future conference alignment and related strategic planning.”

In July, McKenzie and the university reached a settlement over the lawsuit.

The university agreed to pay McKenzie $25,000 to cover all claims related to “alleged, or potential damages, expenses, costs, and attorney’s fees.” The university also agreed to make a statement at the next regularly scheduled open session meeting of the Board of Trustees acknowledging the lawsuit, reaffirming the board’s commitment to following open meetings law and clarifying the matter has been resolved — all of which Preyer did during his remarks Thursday.

The settlement emphasized it is not an admission of liability by any party involved.

UNC Chancellor Lee Roberts told reporters after Thursday’s meeting that the university is committed to following the law.

Correspondent Shelby Swanson contributed to this report.