UNC-Chapel Hill trustees redo vote on provost hire after first was possibly illegal
The UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees voted again Tuesday to approve the university’s new provost and other top administrative positions, after the panel’s votes last week on those hires faced legal scrutiny.
Board Chair Dave Boliek called an emergency meeting Tuesday “to immediately end any further attempts to challenge the validity” of professor Chris Clemens’ appointment as provost and executive vice chancellor, Boliek said.
“The board has been unfairly accused of violating the law by not revealing all details of the nature of the personnel action at the time of the votes,” Boliek said at the meeting.
He defended the board’s initial vote and said the accusations have “unfairly stained this board process and this board and has created unwarranted speculation about the validity of the appointment.”
Campus trustees approved hiring Clemens as the university’s top academic official last Thursday, but they never publicly disclosed the position or candidate they were voting on. Instead, they voted on “action one” and “action item two and three as a package” after deliberating the personnel actions in closed session.
The voting process not only lacked transparency, but one local attorney said it was “unequivocally illegal” and violated North Carolina Open Meetings Law, The News & Observer previously reported.
Announcement delayed six hours
Trustees expected Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz to announce Clemens as the new executive vice chancellor and provost after the Thursday meeting, but that didn’t come until six hours later.
There were still administrative tasks to complete before Clemens’ appointment to provost was finalized and multiple campus messages were drafted and approved before the official announcement could be made, according to the media relations team.
On Tuesday, the board voted 12-1 again on the provost hire, this time making it clear that the vote was to approve Clemens as executive vice chancellor and provost with a salary of $425,000.
Student Body President Lamar Richards was the single “no” in both votes.
After the meeting, Richards said on Twitter that he voted against Clemens “simply because I don’t believe he’s the right person for the job. Simple.”
“After interviewing every candidate and reviewing every CV, Chris came nowhere close to being a top-contender (IMO). This is not about him as much as it is those in the pool,” he tweeted.
The board was free to disclose the candidate information in Tuesday’s meeting because Clemens has already accepted the position and his hire has been announced publicly, according to Boliek.
The provost is one of the university’s most important senior positions, Boliek said, and Clemens needs to move forward putting his team together without any lingering concerns or allegations against the validity of his appointment.
At the request of trustee Marty Kotis, UNC-CH attorney Charles Marshall confirmed that he had “no reason to believe” that Tuesday’s emergency meeting would not be in compliance with the North Carolina Open Meetings Law.
The board also voted again to authorize proposed salary adjustments for the candidates being considered for the executive vice provost and the chief of staff to the chancellor.
That still needs approval from the UNC System Board of Governors, but the university previously announced that Amy Locklear Hertel and Christi Hurt will serve in those positions.
Was the first vote illegal?
State law prohibits members of a public body from voting on matters by reference to a letter or number “with the intention of making it impossible for persons attending” the meeting to know what members are voting on, unless it’s clearly stated in the agenda.
For the first meeting, the agenda offered a notice that trustees would discuss personnel matters, but did not identify the items that would be voted on.
Boliek argued it was “not impossible” for people to know that trustees were voting on the provost and said they had no intention of hiding anything. The board purposely didn’t make the announcement, because Guskiewicz asked for time to put out a campus message, Boliek said.
Boliek further explained the board’s decision at the emergency meeting Tuesday, citing what he called conflicting guardrails of the Open Meetings Law and confidentiality for personnel matters under the state human resources act.
He also noted that at the time of the vote, the employee might have to still accept the appointment or approve the final contract terms. And in this case, Guskiewicz needed time to finalize the appointment with Clemens, Boliek said.
Trustees “acted to prevent the premature disclosure of confidential personnel information associated with the appointment of the provost,” Boliek said.
With the redo of a vote, the board eliminates some of the confusion and criticism surrounding last week’s meeting.
But, someone could still challenge the board’s initial action under the Open Meetings Law in court. A judge could declare the original vote illegal and impose consequences, such as strict compliance on public records or meetings law.
Questions about pressure remain
After Tuesday’s meeting, Richards took to Twitter to explain his no vote, to defend student journalists and to further question the provost search process that ended with Clemens’ hire.
He said claims that Guskiewicz was being pressured to make a specific choice were “not fabricated out of thin air.” Those accusations were publicly shared by UNC-CH Faculty Chair Mimi Chapman, who wrote an op-ed in The Daily Tar Heel highlighting the lack of transparency in this search process.
Richards said people would like to believe that Chapman was dealing in rumors or that some people were “just Anti-Chris,” but that wasn’t the case.
“The Chancellor made clear to *many* individuals that Chris is who folks on the BOT, BOG, and in the system office wanted,” Richards tweeted.
“And to date, I have never heard him say this is who he wanted,” Richards wrote in another tweet. “At the end of the day, someone’s signature is on the paper and that is always their choice. There is always a choice.”
Guskiewicz recommended Clemens to the board, as is standard procedure, and made clear to trustees that this was his pick. In his campus message, Guskiewicz highlighted Clemens’ academic accolades, collaboration and commitment to UNC-CH, saying that Clemens is “the right person to take on this role at this crucial time in Carolina’s history.”
Guskiewicz has not directly denied, affirmed or condemned assertions of undue outside pressure.
Richards said he recognized the difficult situation Guskiewicz was in, but said someone making more than half-a-million dollars each year can’t be forced to do anything.
“To me, it is plain, we must always make decisions that are in the best interest of the University. Every single time. Regardless of the fall out or perception, we do what we believe is best for the future of our students, prosperity of our faculty, and the welfare of our staff,” Richards tweet.
Richards said he doesn’t think Clemens is the person for this job, but this issue is “more about the sanctity of the process. A process, as per our University leadership, is strained and under attack.”
This story was originally published December 14, 2021 at 1:15 PM.
