The University of North Carolina was the first public university to open, but it’s too often not open with the public.

That lack of transparency explains, at least in part, why UNC at Chapel Hill keeps getting caught in controversies ranging from the academic-athletic scandal, to the secret deal to relocate Silent Sam, to the uproar over proposed tenure for journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones.

Another telling example of the university’s tendency to withhold rather than disclose came with the resignation of UNC Police Chief David Perry. Perry’s June 30 resignation was not announced until July 6. The News & Observer’s Dan Kane, acting on a tip that Perry may have been forced out, had made a public records request for an internal audit that might explain why Perry gave up his $225,000 post after only two years.

UNC didn’t respond quickly to the request, so Kane obtained a copy UNC had given the state Council of Internal Auditing. But UNC had redacted it almost entirely, and later gave Kane another copy of the same heavily redacted audit. Kane made a request of the UNC system office and received a more revealing version of the audit’s findings. It said someone had improperly used a criminal records data base to look up people unrelated to UNC matters, wasted money on a leased vehicle and golf cart and took a department vehicle to attend away football games. A UNC trustee had previously told the N&O’s Kate Murphy the audit involved the chief, without commenting on the findings.

Perry, who came to UNC after serving as Florida State University’s police chief, denied the audit’s findings. But, more significantly, he said the audit should not have been released because he has a mutual nondisclosure agreement with UNC. That implies that Perry has something to disclose about UNC, but the former chief would not say what that might be.

There’s plenty wrong with this scenario, and it extends beyond Perry’s tenure and resignation. Why should the public not be informed about misconduct by the campus police chief? UNC wrongly believes that cloaking information minimizes bad press. Often, it makes things worse. But apart from being a poor public relations strategy, it’s also an abuse of public records law.

Brooks Fuller, an Elon University assistant professor of journalism who heads the North Carolina Open Government Coalition, said the audits should have been fully released, except for specifically personal details. “These internal audits are explicitly made public by statute, so there’s no reason they are withheld from public view,” he said.

UNC and other state agencies try to withhold damaging reports by adding them to a personnel file, but Fuller said that dodge shouldn’t be allowed. Just placing a document in a personnel file doesn’t exempt it from disclosure.

Then there’s the possible nondisclosure agreement. Public institutions shouldn’t enter such deals. Their job is to disclose, not shield information relevant to how public servants exercise their public duties. In any case, Fuller notes, a nondisclosure agreement can’t supersede public records law.

Clearly, there’s more the public needs to know about what Perry might have done and what he knows. UNC-CH Chancellor Kevin M. Guskiewicz needs to break what seems to be a vow of silence on campus controversies and provide a full disclosure of the circumstances around Perry’s hiring, his tenure and his resignation. What’s personal can stay personal, but what’s subject to public records law should be disclosed and explained.

When it comes to controversies, UNC-CH spends a fortune on lawyers and public relations. It ought to instead spend time responding, releasing all relevant documents and making top officials available to explain the university’s actions. UNC’s pattern of one controversy after another arises from reflexive attempts to control the news that often only increase the coverage and the public’s anger.

Instead, leaders on the Chapel Hill campus ought to commit anew to living out UNC’s motto: Lux libertas – Light and Liberty.

— Charlotte Observer